Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

LOCATION OF OFFICES BUREAU

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Location of Offices Bureau (Revocation) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Uganda

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government have offered Uganda assistance in the training of her police and armed forces in view of the possibility of withdrawal of Tanzanian troops.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): We attach priority to helping Uganda rebuild her police force, and have been giving assistance in this field for many months. A request for training assistance for the Ugandan armed forces is presently under consideration.

Miss Lestor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Does he agree that Tanzania did a great service to the world in assisting to remove President Amin? Does he further agree that any help that we can give to Uganda to ensure stability in both its armed forces and its police force should in no way be denied? Will

he ensure that a decision is reached as soon as possible?

Mr. Luce: I agree entirely that anything that we can do to help Uganda establish law and order—which is its top priority—is something to which we shall readily respond. That is why I said that we are giving priority to providing assistance and advice with the police and the armed services. There are further requests for advice concerning the armed services, to which we are willing to respond.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend consider either initiating the presence of a Commonwealth peacekeeping force in Uganda or inviting the United Nations to consider establishing a United Nations force in that country, rather than wait on events?

Mr. Luce: Although there has been a withdrawal of 10,000 Tanzanian troops, there are still at least another 10,000 in Uganda at present, and probably about 1,000 Tanzanian police. It is for the President of Uganda to determine whether he wishes to invite other countries to contribute forces. To date there has been no formal request to the Commonwealth Secretariat for a Commonwealth force. If the President wishes for that, it is for him to make an approach.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister referred to a request for assistance in training the armed forces. Will he tell us the nature of that request, when was it made, and how quickly are the Government likely to respond? Is he aware that any other form of civil aid will be futile and worthless unless there is law and order, and chaos is prevented in Uganda?

Mr. Luce: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman that the first priority—which is the choice of the Government of President Binaisa—must be the preservation and establishment of law and order. That is why I have said that we are giving prority to that area.
On the question of armed services, there have been discussions between the Deputy Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff in Uganda, and the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office in Britain. They have made various requests, which we are considering urgently, and to which we shall respond shortly.

Middle East

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to visit the Middle East.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My right hon. Friend hopes to do so before long.

Mr. Hughes: While the Lord Privy Seal is in that region, will he take the opportunity to raise the question of the human rights of the Palestinians, especially as we hear so much about this subject at the present time? Does the Minister agree that we need action rather than words to ensure that these people are once again able to live in their homeland and govern themselves?

Mr. Hurd: As we have often said in recent months, we agree that the Palestinians have political rights. In any settlement that has any chance of enduring, those rights have to be accepted and recognised.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he were to visit the Middle East today he would find among our friends grave concern that some positive and effective action should emerge from the EEC Foreign Ministers meeting on Monday with regard to the position of Iran? Is he further aware that if that meeting fails, that failure will be trumpeted out, literally in Iran and other countries as being a failure by America to achieve the support of its Allies, which will seriously demean and weaken the Western Alliance as a whole?

Mr. Hurd: I accept the first part of my hon. Friend's question. There is no special magic about Monday's meeting, except that it provides the first opportunity for the Foreign Ministers of the Nine to meet and, we hope, to reach at least a first step decision along the lines indicated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister agree that the brutal and barbaric attack on the kibbutz at Misgav Am last week by a constituent body of the PLO makes it plain that the Foreign Secretary was sadly wrong when he said that that organisation was no longer a terrorist body?

Mr. Hurd: We condemn absolutely the attack on the Misgav Am kibbutz to

which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. Ae he knows, we do not recognise the PLO. It is an umbrella organisation which includes different bodies, some of which are still associated with terrorism of that kind and others of which are working through political and diplomatic channels. It is important to encourage the second tendency and to condemn the first.

Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend accept that until the PLO has totally, clearly and definitely renounced any intention of destroying Israel it will be hopeless to demand, and useless to expect, the Israelis to have any kind of meeting with it?

Mr. Hurd: In the end, I think that the two things will have to occur more or less at the same time. The Palestinians will have to accept Israel's right to exist within secure and recognised frontiers, and the Israelis will have to accept that the Palestinians have political rights, too.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the Minister noticed today the announcement of the creation of a new Arab force, including the PLO? Does not that indicate to him that there is no change in the PLO's stance towards the integrity of the State of Israel?

Mr. Hurd: We have noticed the announcement of the force. Let us wait and see what becomes of it in practice.

Mr. James Moss

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Lord Privy Seal what further information he has regarding the trial or release of Mr. James Moss presently held in Mongu jail, Zambia.

Mr. Luce: I understand that no decision has yet been reached on whether the case against Mr. Moss should proceed to trial. Meanwhile, he is regularly brought before a magistrate, but continues to be remanded in custody, since bail is not granted in Zambia in murder cases.

Mr. Thorne: As the Minister knows that Mr. Moss has been in confinement since December 1979, does he think that a visit by himself, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself might expedite a conclusion on the part of the DPP?

Mr. Luce: I should have to reflect a little on that question before giving a


straight answer. However, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), are concerned. Indeed, their constituents who are relations of Mr. Moss have also made representations to me. My judgment is that through our high commission we are keeping in close touch indeed with developments in this case, and we shall keep a very careful watch on the welfare of Mr. Moss.

Mr. Straw: Does not the Minister think that it is unacceptable for Mr. Moss to languish in gaol for four months without the Zambian Director of Public Prosecutions making a decision on whether to bring the matter to trial? Can he say what further action the Foreign Office will take to press the Zambian authorities to make a quick decision, so that at least that element of doubt is removed from over this man's head?

Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a charge of murder has been made against Mr. Moss. It is up to the Zambian Director of Public Prosecutions, when he has considered all the factors, to decide whether Mr. Moss should be taken to trial. We have been in touch with the Zambian Government to ask how far ahead they anticipate that will be. As yet we have had no response, but we hope to receive one very soon.

South Africa

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of South Africa.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord Privy Seal when next he expects to meet the South African Ambassador.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): Our relations with South Africa are governed by our desire to encourage peaceful change there and to achieve an internationally recognised settlement in Namibia. If there is progress on both these fronts, we can look forward to the steady improvement in our relations which we seek.
I have no plans to meet the South African Ambassador in the immediate future.

Mr. Townsend: Bearing in mind the build-up of Soviet maritime forces in the Indian Ocean, most recently described in the defence White Paper, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the possibility of sharing maritime intelligence information with the South African Navy, and even the possibility of having joint naval exercises with the South African Navy?

Sir I. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend will realise, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but at present we have no plans to act as he has suggested.

Mr. Winnick: When he meets the ambassador, will the right hon. Gentleman express the deep concern that is felt about the fact that Mr. Nelson Mandela and his associates have been locked away in South African prisons for 16 years, yet their real crime is that they simply want freedom for their own people? Would it not be wise for the Government to give the South African authorities the same sort of advice as Mr. Harold Macmillan gave them in his "wind of change" speech in 1960?

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have no standing in the case of Mr. Mandela, so I do not think that it would be right for us to make formal representations on his behalf.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".]—However, I am sure that the South African Government recognise very well what an excellent effect on international opinion the release of Mr. Mandela would have, and how widely it would be welcomed in this country as a symbol of the desire for reconciliation in South Africa.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members welcome the improved relationship between this Government and the Government of the Republic of South Africa? Does he agree that it would be wrong to put undue pressure on South Africa at the present time over the future of South-West Africa? Does not he further agree that South Africa is doing its utmost to ensure that there is gradual progress to a more democratic form of government in South-West Africa, and that the Administrator General, Mr.


Viljoen, is seeking to hand over executive powers in many areas to the Parliament which at present exists in South-West Africa, which represents all 11 ethnic groups?

Sir I. Gilmour: Of course I hope for better relations with South Africa. As my hon. Friend will know, a specific question on Namibia will be answered shortly. It may be worth reminding the House that it would have been impossible to hold the elections in Zimbabwe without the logistic help that we received from South Africa.

Mr. Maxton: In view of the Government's opposition to the British Lions tour of South Africa, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House, to the British Lions rugby touring team and to the South African Government that British Embassy facilities in South Africa will not be available to that team?

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that that sort of declaration helps anyone. The House and the Rugby Unions know very well what our attitude is to the Gleneagles agreement, which commits us to taking every practical step to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is right and proper that an organisation such as the British Olympic Association, which does not wish to mix politics with sport, should consider sending a team to Moscow, when for political reasons the South Africans are prevented from sending a team?

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not honestly believe that that issue arises on this question.

Mr. Rowlands: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further with regard to Mr. Nelson Mandela? Surely there is nothing wrong with the Government pressing very strongly for, and making the strongest representations about, the release of Nelson Mandela and others, who have suffered years of the most cruel form of imprisonment on Robben Island. I believe that the full strength of the voice of the Government, through representations to the South African Ambassador here and to the South African authorities, should be heard with regard to the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners.

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I have just said. We do not have any formal standing, but I have made clear what good would follow from a decision of the South Africans to release Mr. Mandela.

Namibia

Mr. Hooley: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many times in the current year the five Western Powers have held discussions with South Africa concerning the ending of the illegal occupation of Namibia.

Mr. Luce: The negotiations for Namibian independence to be achieved through the plan for United Nations supervised elections require frequent contact between the five Western Powers, acting either jointly or individually, and South Africa.

Mr. Hooley: Does not the Minister recognise that there is some urgency in the matter, since South Africa is now regularly using Namibia as a base for repeated assault and aggression not only against Angola but against Zambia? Is there not a contradiction between our efforts to free Namibia and our apparent interest in building up commercial and financial relations with South Africa?

Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been discussions recently between United Nations officials, on both the military and political sides, and the various countries involved with the Namibian problem. Dr. Waldheim, the United Nations Secretary-General, has just made a report on that mission. It is reasonable that we should strike a balance between the need for some patience, in the light of those developments, and the need to reach an agreement as soon as possible—I hope—on the outstanding problem of the demilitarised zone.

Mr. John Page: Will my hon. Friend ensure that when the group of Five discuss Namibia full consideration is given to the views of the different parties inside Namibia, and also to the views of the different wings of SWAPO inside and outside Namibia?

Mr. Luce: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. The group of Five have kept in touch with the internal parties to ensure that they are aware of their views, and they will continue to do so.

Mr. Deakins: Is it not in the interest of the West that there should be a free, democratic and independent Namibia as soon as possible?

Mr. Luce: Indeed. That is why we are committed to working as hard as possible for United Nations' supervised elections.

Afghanistan

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will place in the Library details of his approach to the Russian Government of his proposals as to how the Russian Army should withdraw forces from Afghanistan in order to avoid the possibility of internecine factional bloodshed.

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. The exchanges which we have had with the Russians are confidential. Our approach is flexible and other Governments are contributing suggestions on how the concept might be put into effect. It would, therefore, be misleading to publish details at this stage.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government agree with His Eminence the Cardinal Hume, the Archbishop of Westminster, that the Russians should not be regarded as bogeymen? May we be assured that these confidential communications are carried out in a sensible spirit, and not in the spirit of lashing the Russians? Lashing the Russians is not the way to get the Red Army out of Afghanistan.

Mr. Hurd: The proposals put forward by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and endorsed by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine, are not designed to lash the Russians. They are designed to give the Russians a way in which they can withdraw their troops from their aggression in Afghanistan, leading to neutral and non-aligned status for that country.

Mr. Beith: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the doctrine propounded by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) only a fortnight ago, when he seemed to suggest that the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was justified by the fact that atrocities had been committed against Russian advisers within that country? Has he given careful consideration to that extraordinary principle?

Mr. Hurd: I have indeed. It is true that it is dangerous to be a Russian in Afghanistan at the present time, but the remedy is in their own hands. They could withdraw.

Sir Paul Bryan: Although after the invasion it was right that Western countries should press the Russians to withdraw, is it not now obvious that they have no intention of doing so? Should not the Government base their diplomacy on that assumption?

Mr. Hurd: The Russians are now engaged in a savage colonial war in Afghanistan, to which it is difficult to see an outcome. It must be right to work in the direction in which we are working. The war is being conducted by upwards of 80,000 troops who are engaged in fighting the resistance movement. It must be our aim to encourage and to work towards encouraging them to bring that to an end by withdrawing their troops.

Mr. Whitehead: What evidence do the Government have that some circles—at least in the USSR—now realise that the invasion of Afghanistan was a major blunder in every sense of the word? Which item of British Government policy is designed to encourage those circles and to increase their influence?

Mr. Hurd: It is the proposal to which the question was addressed. It is a proposal precisely designed to give the Russians a way out of their aggression.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of those replies, I shall return to this subject in the Adjournment debate which you have kindly given me for next Monday.

Middle East

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Lord Privy Seal what part his Department is playing in talks on securing peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Hurd: We have no direct role in the current peace negotiations. We continue to support the autonomy talks as a step towards a comprehensive settlement. We are also discussing with our European Community partners ways in which Europe might be able to contribute to such a settlement.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that, so far as the Government may be involved, the peacemaking process is not helped by the intransigence of Premier Begin in colonising the disputed lands? Does he accept that there can be no lasting peace in the area until the just claims of the Palestinian nation are met?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. We believe that the, Israeli policy of increasing settlements on the West Bank is unwise, unjust and a major obstacle to a settlement.

Mr. Hicks: Can my hon. Friend say what action the Government have taken to support the role of the United Nations peace-keeping force in Southern Lebanon, in view of the adverse events there in recent weeks?

Mr. Hurd: We take that very seriously. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has been in London today, and he has expressed great alarm which we share. A discussion is taking place in the Security Council of the United Nations at this moment on the matter. We strongly support UNIFIL, the United Nations force in the Lebanon, and we are willing to support any sensible measures to buttress it and increase its effectiveness.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the fact that the Camp David agreement is defunct and is about to expire on 26 May in any case, what initiatives is the Foreign Secretary trying to mount with his European colleagues to bring forward other proposals which will be more realistic in terms of the need for the restitution of Palestinian rights?

Mr. Hurd: As I said in my original reply, we are considering what we might do. We do not wish to do anything to cut across the highly important talks that are taking place within the Camp David process.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the general confusion in the Middle East and the statement of President Carter that in no circumstances would he recognise the PLO, and in view of what the PLO is now attempting to do in setting up a command in Syria, will the Foreign Secretary, or his deputy, reiterate what was said by the Prime Minister, namely, that there is no question of Britain's recognising the PLO?

Mr. Hurd: President Carter said that he would not recognise the PLO so long as it did not recognise Israel. That is one of the difficulties that we have constantly pointed out. We do not recognise the PLO, and it will be difficult for us to do so as long as it refuses to accept the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognised frontiers.

Dr. M. S. Miller: What progress have the Government made towards persuading the PLO to drop the part of the covenant which states that Israel must be destroyed? Most reasonable people, including the majority of people in Israel, feel that if the PLO were to drop that part of the covenant there could be discussions that could lead to a major breakthrough, which would benefit the Palestinian Arabs.

Mr. Hurd: It is partly a matter of the covenant, as the hon. Gentleman says, but perhaps even more so a question of terrorist attacks. We are doing what we can in that direction. It would be a great help if the Israeli Government would state at the same time that they recognise that the Palestinians have a right to a homeland also.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I agree with the last remarks of the hon. Gentleman. However, there appears to be a different emphasis on the condemnation of the Israeli moves from that on the action of the PLO. Will the Minister make it clear that he is prepared to demand that the PLO drops this part of the covenant as a price for going ahead with negotiations?

Mr. Hurd: We should not pay too much attention to the covenant, any more than we should to the founding documents of other political organisations. It is the action that is taken, particularly the renunciation of terrorist activity, that matters.

Olympic Games

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many countries are now in agreement with Her Majesty's Government in their proposals for an Olympic Games boycott.

Mr. Hurd: The number is increasing all the time. The latest information available suggests that about 30 Governments have publicly announced that they are in


favour of a boycott or have expressed serious reservations about their athletes taking part.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Minister aware that many of us who were deeply unhappy about the holding of the Moscow Olympics on human rights grounds, long before the invasion of Afghanistan or the American presidential elections, nevertheless feel that the current slogging match between the Government and the British Olympic Association will leave us with the worst of all worlds in this country, exposing deep divisions when there should be unity? Will he discuss with those athletes who have voted to go to Moscow, as is their right if they so wish, some form of unified protest by them in Moscow during the holding of the Games?

Mr. Hurd: No. That ignores the fact that the Soviet Union controls the television output for the Games. There is no slogging match. We quietly and firmly reiterate our view when we are asked to do so. It must surely be increasingly clear to the hon. Gentleman that, as the tide of boycott begins to flow strongly in many sports, this will be a tawdry event, with second-rate competition.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whatever other countries may do, will not any British athlete who goes to Moscow to compete dishonour himself and his country?

Mr. Hurd: The competitors find themselves in a difficult personal situation, which has not been helped by the premature decision of the British Olympic Association to accept the Moscow invitation. We shall do what we can to help them in that situation, but we believe that it is strongly against British interests for British athletes to participate.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Should not the Government give up their attempt to blackmail our sportsmen and sports administrators? Does not the Minister find reprehensible the attempted character assassination of Sir Denis Follows, a man of the highest possible integrity, who has served sport admirably over many years?

Mr. Hurd: The integrity of Sir Denis Follows is in no way in question. We disagree with his judgment about British interests in this country.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that this ought to be a situation in which Britain was leading the way and not merely counting how many other countries were doing this? Is it not sad that, without impugning Sir Denis Follows' character, he should commit character suicide rather than have his character assassinated because he will not understand that he has a position to uphold as a British person, and not merely as a representative of sportsmen?

Mr. Hurd: I would rather not be drawn into further comment on Sir Denis Follows. I merely say that we warmly welcome the latest decision by British yachtsmen not to take part.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman say what compensation the Government are prepared to give to those business men who have obtained franchises for the Moscow Olympics, including Mr. McClue of Ayr, and will lose substantial amounts of money? Surely these are the people that the Government should be trying to encourage, but they will lose money as a direct result of the Government's action. What compensation will be given to them by the Government?

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a particular case, he should do so. In principle, the Government are not liable for compensation in this matter.

Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend persuade the Government to take a more resolute attitude towards those British members who still wish to go to Moscow and point out that if they go they could distinguish themselves by being almost the only representatives in Moscow from any free country in the world?

Mr. Hurd: It is true that the tide towards a boycott is flowing strongly and that the competition, sport by sport, will now be second-rate in many respects. For example, the United States' swimmers won 13 gold medals at the last Olympic Games. A swimming competition without American participation is certainly a second-rate affair.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever position individual Members have taken in regard to the Olympics, many of us—even those of us who have strong views—find utterly distasteful and disgusting the attempt by


members of the Government to brand individual sportsmen in Britain as dishonourable or as if they were disloyal in making their personal decisions? Will he therefore confirm that no impediment or difficulty, administrative or bureaucratic, will be put in the way of individuals making their own choice and going to Moscow if they wish to do so?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's account of what has been taking place. We have made it clear that it is a matter for choice in a free country whether people go. We have also made it clear, and shall go on making clear, our judgment as the British Government where British interests lie. We hope that as many individuals as posible will follow that advice.

Afghanistan

Mr. David Price: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is his latest assessment of the situation in Afghanistan; and if the Russian Government have yet replied to Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the neutralisation of Afghanistan.

Mr. Hurd: In Afghanistan the Babrak Karmal regime lacks support. There is widespread popular resistance to the Government and the Soviet occupying forces, which could number as many as 100,000.
Our proposals, endorsed by the European Nine, are for a neutral and nonaligned Afghanistan. This is different from "neutralisation", which implies an imposed solution. We have put our thinking to the Soviet authorities. We are studying their reply and will decide later whether to continue the exchange and, if so, how.

Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is wide support for the Government's proposals, and will they push ahead with them? Does he also agree that this is about the only hope of getting the Soviet Union and its leadership off the hook on which they put themselves with this colonial aggression?

Mr. Hurd: This is a serious proposal which has been put to the Soviet Union and to many other Governments in a serious vein.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We know who guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium and

how that guarantee was implemented. Which countries would guarantee the neutrality of Afghanistan, and how would they implement it?

Mr. Hurd: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I shall not today go into the details of a plan which is still being discussed and is still evolving. The three parts of it are clear: first, Soviet withdrawal; secondly, a declaration by the Afghans, repeating one that they have often made before, in favour of neutral and non-aligned status; and, thirdly, support for that declaration by their neighbours and other countries.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not true that many countries have retaind their neutral status satisfactorily without external military guarantees? In those circumstances, is it not in the interests of the free world and of peace that neutrality should prevail in Afghanistan, and that this would be in the interests of the Great Power balance?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. One of the encouraging things about our proposal is the degree of interest and support which has been expressed for it by many countries in the free world, and in particular the Islamic world.

Mr. Bagier: Does the Minister accept that evidence of that took place in Oslo last week at the parliamentary assembly of the International Parliamentary Union, when an overwhelming majority of nations condemned the incursion into Afghanistan by the USSR and strongly called for its withdrawal? It appeared to be the general hope of the Assembly that the initiative being taken by her Majesty's Government, with a large amount of backing from the Opposition, would be successful?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We certainly intend to proceed in that spirit.

Falkland islands

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will implement the Shackleton proposals for the Falkland Islands.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have nothing to add to the


replies given on 19 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher).

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the reports, confirmed this morning, of a potential fish yield of 1,000 million pounds per annum, plus the potential of offshore oil from these islands, will my hon. Friend confirm that the sovereignty of these islands is not the subject of any agenda item for discussions with any foreign powers?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know from where my hon. Friend got those reports of the potential. I have not the ability to be anything like so precise. In fact, I am dubious about the potential of fishing and oil. I confirm that the forthcoming talks with the Argentine Government will be purely exploratory. The Argentinians have sought talks with us, and we have responded by saying that we will meet them.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of the disputes with Iceland over cod, and the fact that now we have limits of 200 miles by international acceptance, why cannot the Government think a bit more about this matter and put 200-mile limits around these islands in the South Atlantic: not merely the Falkland Islands, but St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Asuncion Island, South Georgia—the whole lot? Even if we cannot get boats out of Hull to fish there because of the distance, at least we could charge the vessels of Japanese and Communist States for licences and make some money for these people in Port Stanley.

Mr. Ridley: It would be impossible to police a 200-mile zone fishing limit round the Falkland Islands without the agreement of the Argentine Government, but that is one of the items that can be raised in the forthcoming talks.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend goes to his meeting, will he refresh his memory about the recommendations by the old Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Public Expenditure Committee in the previous Parliament, in so far as they referred to this specific question of the potential for British fishery development in the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Ridley: I shall certainly refresh my memory of that important document.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow an extra minute at the end of questions on the EEC so that I may now call the Front Bench spokesman on this question.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has invited representatives of the Falkland Islands to attend the new round of talks, as has been the previous practice, and will he say what has been their reaction?

Mr. Ridley: I confirm that we have invited representatives from the Falklands, and one councillor will attend.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Council of Foreign Ministers

Mr. Aitken: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects next to meet his EEC counterparts.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects next to meet his EEC colleagues; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Lord Privy Seal when next he expects to meet his EEC colleagues.

Sir Ian Gilmour: My right hon. and noble Friend will meet his Community colleagues at the next Foreign Affairs Council on 21 and 22 April. I myself will be paying an official visit to Cyprus on those dates. I expect therefore to meet Community colleagues next at the Council to be held on 5 and 6 May.

Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at these meetings, and at the even more important EEC summit in Luxembourg, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will carry with them the good wishes of the entire nation when it comes to trying to organise a fair reduction of Britain's contribution? Will the Government be sure not to neglect the more pressing and urgent geo-political priorities at these summits, especially the need for a concerted European approach to the crises in Afghanistan and Iran?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and my right hon.


and noble Friend will carry with them the good wishes of the entire country. As regards the second part of his question, that will depend upon what happens between now and the meeting of the European Council, and especially upon what happens next week at the Foreign Affairs Council. However, I strongly take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Hicks: In view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Southern Lebanon, especially the difficulties facing the Irish troops as a result of the activities of Major Haddad, supported by his Israeli advisers, will my right hon. Friend confirm that top priority will be given by his counterparts and himself at his forthcoming meeting to taking some form of initiative to safeguard the peaceful intentions of everyone living in that area?

Sir I. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, he and I talked with Dr. Waldheim this morning about this matter, which is serious and needs remedying. However, I cannot guarantee that it will be given top priority at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council.

Mr. Evans: When the Minister next meets his European colleagues, will he make it clear to them when they discuss the imposition of any sanctions against Iran in line with President Carter's request, that any decision that they make, notwithstanding article 131 of the Treaty, will be subject to ratification by the House of Commons, as the Prime Minister promised yesterday?

Sir I. Gilmour: Of course what the Prime Minister promised yesterday will, needless to say, be carried out.

Mr. Crouch: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that in some of the questions put to him on this matter there has been reference to "counterparts" and in others a reference to "colleagues"? It will not have gone unnoticed that my right hon. Friend used the word "colleagues", and in these days of questioning about Europe I am grateful to him for that distinction.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the Lord Privy Seal and his counterparts or colleagues think of any good reason why the Soviet Union should want to colonise Afghanistan?

Sir I. Gilmour: That question should be addressed to the Soviet Union. All we know is that at least 80,000 troops are present in Afghanistan terrorising the inhabitants and causing large numbers of casualties and that this action has been criticised by almost the entire free world, 104 members of the United Nations, and by the Islamic Council. It appears to be supported only by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: When he next meets his EEC colleagues, will my right hon. Friend discover from them whether the Brandt report is to be on the agenda for Venice in June? If so, will he undertake to publish the Government's response to it before that date?

Sir I. Gilmour: It is too early to say what will be on the agenda in Venice, but I think that I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government's views on the Brandt report will have been published before that date.

Mr. James Lamond: The Lord Privy Seal is to discuss with his opposite numbers in the EEC the proposal by Lord Carrington for a neutral Afghanistan. Bearing in mind that he has said today that this neutrality would not be imposed but would have to be agreed, presumably by Afghanistan, would it not have been courteous to have indicated to the Afghan Government the nature of the proposals so that they—after all they will be the Government with whom the proposals will have to be agreed—would have known exactly what was proposed?

Sir I Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman has that wrong. The present Government of Afghanistan would not last a moment if the Soviet troops were not there. His views on this subject are, therefore, not all that relevant.

Mr. Alan Clark: To return to my right hon. Friend's meeting with his counterparts, may we assume that on the agenda of this meeting will be the text of Sir Roy Denman's report, which asserts that the majority of senior Eurocrats are drunk and incompetent?

Sir I. Gilmour: I cannot give a definite answer to that, but I think that it is unlikely.

Mrs. Dunwoody: When the Lord Privy Seal talks to his counterparts about Afghanistan will he make it clear to


them that if there is to be a concerted effort to support the American position over the hostages in Iran that is made easier by the fact that the EEC is now less dependent on Iran for its supplies of oil? That therefore makes the problem political, as opposed to directly economical.

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree that it is largely a political problem. The question is how to achieve the objectives that we all have in mind, which are, first, the maintenance and solidarity of the Western Alliance, and, secondly, the release of the hostages.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall make a statement tomorrow on open questions on foreign affairs, which is something new.

European Council Meeting

Mr. Dykes: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the new date for the postponed European Council meeting scheduled for 31 March to be announced.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The European Council is now to be held in Luxembourg on 27 and 28 April.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he say whether he is now convinced that the worst of the unthinking, narrow-minded, knocking of the Community in this country is over, and that, although the summit was postponed originally for the wrong reasons, the refixing of the new date offers a good opportunity for the Community to reach positive and constructive solutions both on our own budget contribution and on taking the Community forward on a number of important matters?

Sir I. Gilmour: I cannot tell what will be done by what my hon. Friend called the knockers of the Community. However, I agree with him that there is a great opportunity at the forthcoming Council not only to make considerable progress and to achieve a solution on our budget contribution, but to make progress in other areas.

Mr. Deakins: Has the delay in holding the summit given the Government any more room for manoeuvre over Britain's budget contributions?

Sir I. Gilmour: We are not seeking greater room for manoeuvre, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has frequently said. We are seeking a genuine compromise, and we have a limited area in which to manoeuvre. However, the enforced delay has enabled various contacts to take place.

Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are much more likely to get a sensible answer to the problems of Britain's contributions if at the same time we show our determination to make the European Community a real force for peace in the world?

Sir I. Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will be aware that since the Government came into power, and especially over the past two months since the invasion of Afghanistan, we have shown a distinct wish and inclination to do just that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that one other thing has happened in the interim? At the same time as he has been asking for a considerable change in our budget contributions, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has managed, by moving to positive MCAs, to increase the contributions. How will he explain that to the Market?

Sir I. Gilmour: As the hon. Lady will know, or should know, the increase in our contributions as a result of the move to positive MCAs, of which she talks, will be so infinitesimal that I do not think it needs explanation.

Areas of Disagreement

Mr. Marlow: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list the areas of disagreement which are outstanding between the United Kingdom and the other member States of the European Community.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The United Kingdom's inequitable contribution to the Community budget is the main problem affecting the United Kingdom specifically. The Government are determined to negotiate a fair solution. There are other issues for the Community as a whole to resolve, such as the need to control the costs of agricultural surpluses and to modify the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Marlow: In view of the fact that there is, although my right hon. Friend


did not disclose all of them, a long list of problems, and therefore the possibility, to say the very least, that these problems will not be resolved, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will be kind enough to confirm, in just one word, that it would be imprudent for Her Majesty's Government not to have a contingency plan based on the possibility that we do not get agreement, and that therefore we might in the last resort have to have some new policy of positive association with the countries in the Community other than the one that we have at the moment?

Sir I. Gilmour: If I had to answer my hon. Friend in one word, it would be "No". However, I have told him and the House that I do not believe that what he is saying is a serious option. Britain is a member of the EEC and the Government have every intention of ensuring that it continues to be so.

Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, in his helpful spirit of compromise, to what extent we are prepared to compromise on fish, on energy policy and on our relationship with the monetary system?

Sir I. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have said that we do not believe in a package deal. We believe that all these issues should be decided on their merits.

Mr. Budgen: If it proves impossible for the countries of the EEC to adopt a single and effective attitude towards the crises in Afghanistan and Iran, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House where the British people are likely to see the much-vaunted political advantages of remaining in the EEC?

Sir I. Gilmour: That is a doubly hypothetical question, and therefore one that I cannot answer.

Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that we are facing a £1·2 billion deficit in payments and a £2½ billion deficit in trade with the EEC, of which £700 million accounts for textile goods? Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office any contingency plans to improve the trading position, to seek stern negotiations to improve it or get out, which is the only solution that most sensible people see as the alternative?

Sir I. Gilmour: I know that that is something that is very much concerning the Labour Party at the moment, but it is not concerning us. The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that our trading performance with the EEC is better than it is with the rest of the world. It is a characteristic of the Labour Party that its Members do not like listening to facts of which they do not approve. The export-import ratio of our trade with the Community increased to 86 per cent., from 83 per cent. in 1978. Since 1973 our exports to the EEC have increased by 350 per cent., and elsewhere by merely 200 per cent.

President of the Commission

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Lord Privy Seal when next he expects to meet with the President of the European Community.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I expect to meet the President of the Commission, Mr. Jenkins, when I next attend the Foreign Affairs Council on the 5–6 May, if that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind in his question.

Mr. Foulkes: That is what I have in mind. I apologise for the mistake in terminology. When the right hon. Gentleman meets the President of the Commission, will he explain to Mr. Jenkins, and will he explain to us now, why the Government will not accept finance from the European Community if it also involves finance from United Kingdom Government sources? Does he accept that this exacerbates our budget problem?

Sir I. Gilmour: No, I do not. I am not certain on what the hon. Gentleman bases his question. As he knows, there have been Commission proposals to spend EEC money in Britain, which we have welcomed.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend recall the judgment at the time of our original application to join the EEC, namely, that the cost of membership would be high and easy to quantify, and that the benefits of membership were unquantifiable but certainly very much higher? Does that judgment still not hold good? Does it not account for the ease with which one can set out the disadvantages and the relative difficulty in setting out the advantages?

Sir I. Gilmour: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It will not have escaped his notice that the Labour Party, when unfortunately, it is m government is in favour of the EEC, and that when it is in opposition it always turns against it.

Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer about the balance of trade between the EEC and the United Kingdom is misleading? The figures that he used include the trade in oil. If he considers the trade in manufactured goods, which must be the test of any industrialised nation, he will see that Britain has suffered again and again as a result of its membership of the EEC. Have the positive and substantial benefits of the balance of trade that were promised by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in the 1971 White Paper come about?

Sir I. Gilmour: That is because our economic performance in general declined sharply under the previous Labour Government. The fact remains that we are doing better with the EEC than we are with the rest of the world.

Official Documentation (Availability)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Lord Privy Seal is he is satisfied with the form of official documentation used in the EEC Council of Ministers and the arrangements he has made for relevant documents to be made available to public and Parliament.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Documents are generally made available to Parliament within two working days of receipt in London. There are occasions, unfortunately, when Community documentation is not available as early as we would wish, but we shall on these occasions continue to make every effort to ensure that the House has the documentation as quickly as possible.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the Lord Privy Seal for that reply. However, will he consider the matter again and make sure that on all occasions proper documents of the EEC Council are available? If he should find that there is no proper documentation that can be placed before the public and Parliament, will he take action to ensure that during the meeting of the Council of Ministers proper documenta-

tion is provided to form the basis for scrutiny and debate?

Sir I. Gilmour: I shall have another look at this. I agree with the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is desirable that, when possible, documentation should be available. We shall do everything that we can to ensure that it is. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any guarantee, because these things are not necessarily within the British Government's power.

Mr. Dykes: When the Council is legislating, would it not be a good idea for it, occasionally at least, to hold some of its sessions in public, with the press present?

Sir I. Gilmour: That is something that could be considered.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult to examine all the directives and regulations that flow from the Council if those documents are not available? Would the right hon. Gentleman like to suggest a new method whereby no directive becomes operative in the United Kingdom until it has been examined by the House of Commons?

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree that it is difficult to examine a document if we do not have it. I have nothing to add to my original answer.

Council of Foreign Ministers

Mr. Knox: asked the Lord Privy Seal when next his noble Friend expects to met his European Economic Community colleagues.

Sir Ian Gilmour: At the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 21 and 22 April.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unanimity shown by the Council of Foreign Ministers last week over Iran represents a significant step forward in the development of an EEC foreign policy? Will this process continue at the meeting?

Sir I. Gilmour: I think that we would all agree that next week's meeting will be very important. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, it will not be the be-all and end-all of our policy on Iran.

Mr. Bowen Wells: When my right hon. Friend next meets his European Economic Community colleagues, will he raise the subject of the operation of the European Investment Bank and of our contribution to it? Does he agree that we have our own Commonwealth Development Corporation, which is more worthy of the contributions that we make from our limited resources? Will he reduce our contribution to the European Investment Bank in favour of the Commonwealth Development Corporation?

Sir L Gilmour: Both institutions are important. I shall certainly look at the question, but it is unnecessary to denigrate one while praising the other.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Lord Privy Seal were a stubborn Iranian, would a blockade with the possibility of a military threat make him more, or less, amenable to releasing hostages?

Sir I. Gilmour: I can safely say that that is a hypothetical question.

POST OFFICE (CHAIRMAN)

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I understand that it would meet the wishes of the House if I were to make a statement about impending changes in the senior management of the Post Office.
Sir William Barlow has made excellent progress with the administrative prepartions for the legislation that the Government intend to introduce soon to separate the Post Office into two corporations.
Sir William knew that I hoped that he would become the chairman of British Telecommunications, but to my great regret told me shortly before Easter that he would prefer to resume his career in the private sector. Sir William has my respect and admiration for what he has achieved and sought to achieve in the Post Office during the past two and a half years. His departure later this year will be a loss to the public sector, though I have no doubt that it will be a gain for private industry.
I also announced yesterday that after consideration of a number of possible candidates I would appoint Mr. Ronald Dearing, a deputy secretary in the Department of Industry, to be a deputy chairman of the Post Office and chairman-designate of the postal business.

Mr. John Silkin: Opposition Members regret that Sir William Barlow felt it necessary to offer his resignation on this occasion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West Mr. Lewis) must take up his fight in his own way. I am speaking for the majority of Opposition Members. The manner in which Sir William Barlow is going, the very soothing words uttered by the Secretary of State, and the chivalrous words of Sir William are reminiscent of the situation when Sir Leslie Murphy and the NEB were sacked.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there were differences of opinion between the Government and Sir William Barlow, particularly on three issues? First, will he confirm that there were differences of opinion about the investment programme? Is it not a fact that in 1979–80 the Post


Office was compelled to repay £110 million? Is it not also a fact that this year's cash limit has been rigorously imposed and that Sir William believed that it was necessary to increase the investment programme? All those who are waiting for telephones no doubt share that opinion.
Secondly, is it not true that Sir William believed that the rigid and unimaginative cash limits imposed by the Government made it difficult to hold sensible wage negotiations? We have seen the effect of lunatic wage negotiations in other industries, particularly the steel industry.
Thirdly, is it not a fact that Sir William was utterly opposed to the break-up of the Post Office monopoly, because he saw the danger to the rural letter service? He was equally bitterly opposed to the attempt to destroy the monopoly in telecommunications of the maintenance and installation services.
Finally, the Secretary of State has often said that he believes in a policy of Government non-intervention in management. Can he believe that imposing impossible cash limits on shipbuilding, the steel industry and the Post Office, and the sacking of the NEB and Sir Leslie Murphy along with the forced—that is how we see it—resignation of Sir William Barlow is non-intervention in management? If he believes that, he has a very idiosyncratic view of nonintervention.

Sir K. Joseph: The short answer is "No". There has not been a series of such disagreements between Sir William, myself and the Government. The exact reasons for Sir William's resignation—which I very much regret—are for him to give.
It is true that cash limits—introduced by the previous Labour Government—impose a discipline, particularly on nationalised industries. Chairmen of nationalised industries, particularly of those that are successful, such as the telecommunications part of the Post Office, are irked by restraint on desirable investment. At this stage I draw no implications for British Telecommunications. However, it is all the more sensible, where practical, to introduce private capital in order to lessen borrowing—where necessary—on the public sector borrow-

ing requirement. There is no truth in the allegation that there was a wide difference of opinion about the Government's decisions on the Post Office monopoly—largely because the Government have not yet made any final decision.
Sir William Barlow would have liked a bigger investment programme. Indeed, we would have liked a bigger one. We are examining ways in which the Post Office can have a larger telecommunications investment programme within cash limits. I do not see the benefit of having cash limits—introduced by the previous Labour Government—if they are slack and imaginative, as opposed to what the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) would be pleased to call rigid and unimaginative. What is the point of having them if they are slack and flabby?

Mr. Silkin: Will the Secretary of State tell us—as he has not answered my question about non-intervention in management—how it is possible to provide the 222,000 telephones that are now required, without a new investment programme? How can that be achieved within the rigid cash limits?

Sir K. Joseph: There are a number of ways in which the cash flow of nationalised industries can be improved, including higher productivity in particular, and better co-operation between managements and the work forces. But in addition, the investment programme can be increased beyond the retained cash flow of the organisation, to the extent that we can introduce private capital and reduce the claims on the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Cyril Smith: While accepting that Sir William did not disagree with the Minister on the monopoly of postal services since that decision has not yet been made, may I ask whether Sir William expressed a view about what that decision should be, and whether the Minister gave any indication of what the decision might be? In the light of that, did those considerations have any effect on the resignation?

Sir K. Joseph: That question must be for Sir William. As far as I am aware, the answer is "No". Sir William was aware of my thinking about the changes that might be introduced, and I was certainly aware of his reaction to that thinking and have taken it into account.

Sir Paul Bryan: Has Mr. Ronald Dearing been warned of the truly catastrophic situation that he is likely to be asked to take over in 18 months? Is not the Post Office being asked to provide services that are well beyond its depleted powers and beyond those required in most other countries? Should not a new appraisal of the Post Office's future be made before Mr. Dearing is asked to take over?

Sir K. Joseph: I am slightly puzzled about the reference to 18 months ahead. Mr. Dearing has unrivalled knowledge from outside the postal service of the problems, since he has been the deputy secretary in the Department of Industry involved in Post Office policy. I believe that my hon. Friend is concerned about the split when he refers to "18 months". I do not share his view that that split will produce the cataclysmic situation that he fears. Mr. Dearing has had the stalwart character to take a one-way ticket out of the Civil Service into what inevitably will be a demanding and exposed job, and all credit to him.

Mr. Golding: Is the Secretary of State aware that while the Post Office Engineering Union has strongly disagreed with Sir William Barlow over his opposition to industrial democracy and a shorter working week, it believes that he has been right to oppose Government policy on cash limits at their present levels, the proposed creaming off of traffic to private wires, and taking away the rights of exclusive service to install and maintain equipment? Is he aware that the union believes that Sir William has been right on these matters, and it is known that he has done this in order to defend the postal monopoly?

Sir K. Joseph: I am glad that voices other than mine have been raised in tribute to Sir William.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend accept that while we wish Sir William well in his personal future, not everyone on the Government Benches will be devastated by his departure? Will he also accept that the one thing that Sir William has manifestly failed to achieve is a first-class postal service? Will he ask Mr. Dearing to give his early and urgent attention to achieving a first-class postal service or to abolishing the non-

sensical two-tier system that we have at present?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not sure that my hon. Friend and those who support him fully appreciate the difficulties of managing some of our nationalised industries, particularly where the trade union membership refuses to accept the advice not only of their management but of their trade union leaders in improving services to the public.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Secretary of State said that Sir William voluntarily resigned of his own free will and volition, and, of course, Sir William has admitted that. Can we be assured that as he will be getting a fabulous index-linked pension, the taxpayers will not be expected to give him a golden handshake, when everyone knows that the postal services today are worse than they have been at any time in the past 50 years?

Sir K. Joseph: The degree to which the postal services are worse than they have been is not the fault of Sir William, who has striven very hard to secure the co-operation of the postal trade unions in improving the service to the public. I suspect that Sir William will be able to earn substantially more in the private sector than he earns as chairman of the Post Office.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places since the statement was made.

Mr. Tapsell: Before my right hon. Friend reiterates too confidently his statement about the success of the telecommunications side of the Post Office, will he bear in mind that those who work in the City of London and earn substantial amounts in foreign exchange for this country now have to operate what is probably the most inefficient telecommunications service in any major financial centre? Is he aware that if these people wish to make a telephone call to many of the other financial centres they have to send a telex message and ask them to make the call?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not criticise what my hon. Friend says. There are many improvements that Sir William and the


Government would like to achieve in telecommunications. The investment programme is part of the problem, and that is why we seek ways to enable it to grow.

Mr. John Evans: Is the real truth the fact that the chairmen of the nationalised industries are finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to work within the ridiculous framework laid down by the Secretary of State? Is it not also true that in the not-to-distant future there are likely to be further resignations of chairmen of nationalised industries? Would it not be better if the Secretary of State asked Sir William to stay in the Post Office and, for the sake of British industry, resigned himself?

Sir K. Joseph: In that long question the hon. Member did not propose anything to replace cash limits. If he were to suggest denationalisation we might listen to him.

Mr. Jessel: Is there likely to be any improvement in the postal services now?

Sir K. Joseph: I must weigh my words carefully here. Sir William, Mr. Ronald Dearing and I all have the same purpose—to improve the postal service. It is now a question of the extent to which the membership of the relevant trade unions co-operates with management in achieving this.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Why is the Secretary of State trying to cover up this matter? Why will he not admit openly that his own bungling interference has brought about this situation in the Post Office? When the Secretary of State tells the House that the £110 million that the Post Office had to repay to the Treasury was primarily from the profitable part of the organisation, namely, the telecommunications business, does he not understand that £80 million of that £110 million came not from the telecommunciations side but from the postal side of the business? Finally, can he explain why, since he became Secretary of State, he has spent a great deal of time attacking the postal service? How on earth can he expect the people who work in that industry to have confidence in the job that they do? Will he get someone to preside over the industry to give them pride in their jobs?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not habitually blame all problems on the trade unions, but the habit of the Opposition in ignoring the contribution of trade unions to the problems is going too far. The loss of the Post Office was to a large extent caused by the billing dispute, which cost the postal service nearly £100 million in interest on borrowed money. I think that the loss in the postal service would have been much reduced if the trade unions concerned, particularly the postal trade union, had co-operated in achieving higher productivity to offset the sheer increase in costs involved in their wage claim.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to comment on the difficulty apparent in the last few years in recruiting and holding successful chairmen of nationalised industries?

Sir K. Joseph: I shall have difficulty in restraining the length of my answer. First, the job is inherently very difficult in managing an industry that is not subject to the disciplines of competition or the threat of bankruptcy. Secondly, it is not always possible to obtain the best person—although I believe that we have done so in the postal service—to head these industries at the level of pay at the present standard. Those are two difficulties, to begin with.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not the case that if Sir William Barlow went to an unfair dismissals tribunal his leaving would be regarded as constructive dismissal? Have the trade unions been consulted on the new appointment? Why was the post not advertised? Why do those who get into these jobs with fantastic salaries—fantastic compared with the pay of an ordinary postman—come from the magic circle in his office?
How does the Secretary of State expect the ordinary postal and telecommunications workers to co-operate when they see a chairman appointed from his little clique to preside over the destruction of the Post Office as we know it?

Sir K. Joseph: I scarcely know where to start on that series of imaginative allegations. First, there is no question of dismissal, constructive or otherwise. I am sad that Sir William Barlow has decided to go, but he prefers the cut and


thrust of the private sector to the monopoly world of the public sector.
Secondly, surely it is in the interests of the average postman and telephone worker to have good management and to co-operate with good management. That is how so many wage earners abroad have achieved a standard of living very much higher than that of our wage earners.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the uncertainty that the resignation has caused in the Post Office, which is one of the largest employers in the country, when can we expect the legislation that will separate the postal side from the telecommunications side? As the right hon. Gentleman's cash limits have provoked a dispute in the steel industry and are provoking a strike in British Leyland, does he expect them to provoke an industrial dispute in the Post Office?

Sir K. Joseph: Cash limits are bound to create difficulties but they are nevertheless essential if we are to control public borrowing and, through that, inflation. I hope that the legislation will be introduced soon, but that is not a matter for me alone.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Does the Secretary of State not realise that ever since he took office he has not had a good word to say about the Post Office? He even agreed with the stupid and inaccurate remarks of the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell). How can the right hon. Gentleman be so complacent about cash limits and the investment programme when the latest figures show that at least 60,000 people have been waiting for telephones for at least six months? How could he have expected Sir William Barlow to continue as chairman when the right hon. Gentleman has continually undermined confidence in the Post Office?

Sir K. Joseph: I have sought to represent the consumer's reaction to the Post Office, and I have had plenty of evidence that the consumer has been dissatisfied with the postal service.

PORT OF LONDON (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL

Sir Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to suggest that the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill, which is on today's Order Paper, is not a Public Bill but is either a Hybrid Bill or, possibly, a Private Bill, and ought to be subjected to the appropriate procedure for that sort of Bill.
The long title says that the Bill is to
provide financial assistance for and in connection with measures taken by the Port of London Authority to restore the profitability of their undertaking by reducing the number of persons employed by them.
Certainly, by that title, the Bill benefits one authority—the Port of London Authority—which is one body within a class or category of bodies, namely, all those that are port authorities. On that basis, the other bodies in that category should have the opportunity to present their cases, by petition, to the House.
I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, but I shall quote it in order to develop my argument. According to "Erskine May", at page 862, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster gave the following definition of a Hybrid Bill in 1962:
I think that a hybrid bill can be defined as a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class.
I submit that that relates not only to an adverse effect but to a favourable effect.
The Bill deals preferentially and discriminatorily with the interests of the Port of London Authority in a manner different from the private interests of other bodies of the same category or class, namely, other port authorities. Of course, in my constituency I have particularly in mind the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.
Page 865 of "Erskine May" deals specifically with Bills relating to the Port of London Authority. The paragraph is headed "Port of London" and says:
The Port of London Bill, 1903, was introduced by the Government and proceeded with as a hybrid bill, but, after being suspended, was withdrawn in the next Session. The Port of London Bill, 1908, a Government bill which constituted the Port of London Authority, was also proceeded with as a hybrid bill, but bills.


promoted since then by the Authority have regularly been passed as private bills.
That deals specifically with the sort of Bill that is on the Order Paper today.
When I consulted the usual people whom one consults on a subject such as this I was told that the Bill only provides money and does not alter the law, and that therefore it is a Public Bill dealing with public policy. I should have thought that if it is necessary to have statutory authority for the Minister to give away money to one body, that surely alters the law. Even if it is taken that it does not alter the law—and it must alter the law if we need a statute—I can find nothing in "Erskine May" to support that sort of argument.
I submit that the Bill comes clearly within Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's definition of Hybrid Bills in 1962 and well within the precedents of the way in which the House has previously dealt with Port of London Authority Bills. I submit that it is either a Hybrid Bill or a purely Private Bill.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have an advantage over the hon. Members, because I had notice this morning of the point of order that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) has raised, and I have the further advantage—I hesitate to say it to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—of having studied "Erskine May", which I know the hon. Gentleman takes to bed with him. I also have the advantage of having looked into the matter in considerable depth during the day.
I am naturally grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice this morning, which enabled me to have time to study the matter and to take advice upon the question.
Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman, I must inform him and the House that I am satisfied that the Bill is not, of its nature, hybrid. Its sole effect is to make a grant of public money to the Port of London Authority to help it in its present financial difficulties.
There are a number of instances of Bills giving similar assistance to individual authorities which have been pro-

ceeded with as Public Bills. I mention in particular the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act 1971, the British Leyland Act 1975 and the Covent Garden Market (Financial Provisions) Act 1977, in respect of none of which was there, as far as I am aware, a claim that they should be treated as hybrid measures.
In my view there is nothing in the Bill that amounts to direct commercial discrimination against any other authorities. I therefore rule that it does not require to be proceeded with as a Hybrid Bill.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I say with great humility that I share your view, but, purely for the clarity of precedent, I think that it is important to stress that Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir. G. Page) quoted, contains a word to which emphasis was not given. I think that a Hybrid Bill can be defined as a Public Bill that affects a particular private interest—not a particular interest, but a particular private interest. As I understand it, the Port of London Authority is a public body. Therefore, on that very fine point as well, it would not seem to me to fall within Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall sleep a lot better tonight.

Sir Graham Page: May I express gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, rather than to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for looking so carefully into the matter? I am much obliged.

Mr. Spriggs: We follow your advice with great care, Mr. Speaker, and the House is grateful to you for giving it, but since this morning's post arrived the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has let hon. Members know that it is now in serious financial difficulties. From what you have said, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that there is a form of discrimination in the Bill. I should like you to have another look at the matter and report your findings to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I looked into the matter earlier today. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who feel keenly about Liverpool would be well advised to pursue the matter in another way. The Bill is not a hybrid measure.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SECURITY)

Mr. McCusker: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating security situation in Northern Ireland, which has resulted during the past week in the deaths of three members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and £1 million-worth of damage caused yesterday by a Province-wide bomb blitz.
Earlier this week the House was given the details of the deaths and injuries suffered by the police as a result of Provisional IRA activity during the past 10 days. I shall not bore the House by repeating the details of their deaths, but simply remind hon. Members present that another three gallant young men, aged 24, 33 and 43, are dead and an equal number of their colleagues are seriously injured.
Since then the terrorists have again demonstrated their capacity to strike at the community by bomb as well as bullet. Yesterday, in a well co-ordinated Province-wide bomb blitz, in a space of 19 minutes they totally destroyed three hotels, at a cost of at least £1 million, and in the process probably added another 100 people to the dole queue. We must be thankful that no one was killed, although a number of people were injured. In those bombings almost 1000 lb of explosives were used.
In Strabane there was the further sinister element of the Provisional IRA again being able to commandeer a house, hold the family prisoner overnight and use the family's car to carry out its mission. While that was happening the person responsible for security in the Province was in Dublin talking to the Republic's Government. Many people in Northern Ireland, including me, feel

that he could have been better employed elsewhere.
There has been a serious deterioration in security in Northern Ireland during the past week. In my own constituency, four more men have been murdered. I resent the fact that Dublin politicians, some of whom are not without guilt with regard to the situation in Northern Ireland, should ever have the opportunity to discuss these matters, let alone to discuss them before Members of this House, and particularly before Members from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning, before 12 o'clock, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating security situation in Northern Ireland, which has resulted during the past week in the deaths of three members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and £1 million-worth of damage caused yesterday by a Province-wide bomb blitz.
The hon. Gentleman has brought our attention to the continuing grievous position in Northern Ireland. The House has listened with deep concern to what he has said.
The House has advised me that when I give my ruling I should not give the reasons for my decision, but I tell the hon. Gentleman in passing that he is aware, and the House is aware, that I do not decide whether the subject shall be debated. I say that for the benefit of people outside the House as well. I decide merely whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow.
After listening to the hon. Gentleman with anxious concern, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 so as to control the moving or lifting of heavy weights by employed persons and for connected purposes.
At present the position regarding weight limits is confused. The Agriculture (Lifting of Heavy Weights) Regulations 1959 provide for any workers employed in agriculture to lift.
any load consisting of a sack or a bag together with its contents lifted or carried unaided a maximum of 180 lb.
Yet the Woollen and Worsted Textiles (Lifting of Heavy Weights) Regulations 1926 put the maximum where the yarn, cloth, tool or appliance is reasonably compact at 150 lb and where it is not a rigid body at 120 lb. There is no reason for supposing that there is any physical difference between textile workers and agricultural workers.
Section 72(1) of the Factories Act 1961 limits the load for any employed person to
any load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury
to the person lifting, carrying or moving it. My Bill would retain that general limitation, but, in order to clarify and improve the position, the maximum weight permitted in any circumstances for adult males would be 112 lb.
The Bill would be classed as a "relevant statutory provision" under schedule 1 to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, and as such would be subject to the powers of the Minister under section 1 of that Act. That would mean that, should the Minister decide that further improvements were necessary as part of a review of the lifting of heavy weights in industry and agriculture, he would not be hindered by an Act which would not be part of the general legislative pattern. He would thus be able to repeal or alter the provisions of the Act by regulation made under the major statute, provided that any alterations were
designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare.
However, it seems to me important to take action quickly, because of the num-

ber of back injuries that occur, rather than wait for a review. Indeed, in a written question on 31 March 1976 I asked the then Secretary of State for Employment
what consultations have been instituted with the Health and Safety Commission to produce legislation further to control the lifting of heavy weights by work people in order to reduce the demands on the Health Service arising from back injuries.
The Minister replied:
I am advised by the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that the Health and Safety Executive has held informal discussions with representatives of a number of organisations having wide experience in the problems of the manual lifting of heavy weights. In addition, it is intended to include the subject in a review of the wider field of ergonomics which is to be undertaken by the Executive."—[Official Report, 31 March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 486.]
I tabled the question on 31 March 1976. At that stage the Health and Safety Commission was about to embark on a review of the lifting of heavy weights, incorporating much detail and expert advice. So far there has been no result. The anomalous position that I outlined in 1976 still pertains. The legislation has not been improved one jot. One is driven to the conclusion that the only weight lifted by many concerned with the issue is a piece of paper. If members of the Health and Safety Commission were to do a stint in a foundry or a mill, lifting bolts of cloth or pieces of machinery, there might be speedier action.
About 50,000 people are involved each year in accidents resulting in strains, sprains and other injuries to the trunk, including slipped discs. I hope that my Bill will help reduce the toll.
Lifting heavy weights also contributes to back pain. On 18 January a Conservative Member pointed out:
Every day 56,000 people are off work because of back pain. Every year 18 million working days are lost because of it, which is more than the number of days lost because of strikes."—[Official Report, 18 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 2173.]
On average each year over 15 million working days are lost through industrial injury. In 1976, by comparison, 3½ million days were lost in strike action. In 1977 it was just over 10 million, as opposed to about 15 million days lost in the same year through industrial injury.
The Government are enacting Draconian legislation against trade unions. It would be preferable if they concentrated on eradicating or at least reducing industrial injury. One way that that can be done is by supporting this modest measure.
My Bill is a small step in the right direction. The TUC wants a lower level, which I believe is right, but by making my Bill a relevant statutory provision, which is a legal definition under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the Minister can improve the position by regulation.
For four years the Health and Safety Executive has been looking at the problem, and it is apparently about to embark on yet another working party, because the commission cannot agree on regulations. We should not wait for a further 200,000 accidents, with millions of pounds worth of National Health Service facilities being utilised. It is time that action was taken.
While it is intended that the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act shall apply to this Bill and that it shall be subject to such means of enforcement as improvment and prohibition notices, it is also intended that section 47 shall be limited in its application, in that my Bill would give rise to civil liability under actions for breach of statutory duty. It is in that field that many workers have found the existing regulations most onerous.
In 1976 I quoted the position of a farm worker who was injured after lifting a load of about 180 lb. The position has not changed. That worker obtained compensation only because the defined weight could not be obtained, and the matter was settled out of court. As long as statutory limits remain high, such accidents will continue.
On 14 April 1976 I quoted from a letter written by a textile worker, who said:
may I give you another example of unfair situations regarding the Health and Safety at Work Act and the attitude of management. An inspector employed in our cloth inspection department had occasion to lift a roll of cloth off a 'batching unit'. There is no good access to the above machine and the operator/inspector would have to stand sideways and attempt to lift approximately 150 lb. or more by leaning over the machine. Requests were made by the men in the inspector's department

to make the job more accessible or redesign the hatching unit for better access. That was two years ago!
I added:
The access was altered only under threat of legal action by the men, and photographic evidence was taken which resulted in action.
Only last year that illustration in 1976 was emphasised by a constituent of mine who found herself in exactly the same position, and subsequently suffered a back injury at work.
By bringing down the maximum weight to 112 lb., we should save the nation money, prevent many damaging accidents, keep more people at work in a better state of health and release valuable National Health Service facilities for other uses. Any future improvements recommended by the Commission can readily be incorporated in the way I have described. If action can be taken swiftly by approving the Bill, it will clarify a difficult and confused situation, and surely in health and safety at work, that can only be of benefit."—[Official Report, 14 April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 1394–5.]
In 1976 people were reviewing, examining and re-examining the position, yet nothing has been done to legislate on the matter. The Department of Employment, which is responsible for it, has not even bothered to send anyone to keep a watching brief on the proposals. That is a disgrace.
I hope that the House will give its approval for the introduction of the Bill. By this modest measure the House can reduce industrial injury and the resulting pain.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Ted Fletcher, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Joan Evans, Mr. Russell Kerr and Dr. M. S. Miller.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Bob Cryer accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 so as to control the moving or lifting of heavy weights by employed persons and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 May and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

HOUSING BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st May.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 1st May may continue until 11 p.m. whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 2nd May.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member

who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private Business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order of a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;


(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sit-

ting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Housing Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

When I moved the Second Reading of the Housing Bill on 15 January, I said that it was far more than just another Housing Bill. It is a Bill with profound social implications. It provides an opportunity to transform the personal prospects of millions of our citizens. It will establish the rights of tenants as individuals above the bureaucracies of the State and local authorities.

The Bill flows from the clearest of manifesto commitments upon which this Government were elected. The policies within it were endorsed overwhelmingly by the electorate. They were promised in the Royal Address and were presented to the House in the Housing Bill at the earliest opportunity, which was dictated


by these unique provisions and the time taken to draft and present them to the House.

The policies are ones that the people clearly want and have indicated that they want. It may interest the House to know that there is a continual stream of letters to my Department from people who are eager to buy their homes and are longing to know when the Bill will come into force. We have received about 2,800 letters from members of the public about the right to buy, about 90 per cent. of which support our policies.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Big deal.

Mr. Heseltine: For those concerned it is a big deal, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) realises that.
The majority of these letters are from tenants who are trying to buy their own homes. The largest group are those who are having difficulty in buying because landlords will not sell, or sell at the discounts that it is within their discretion to grant. These people want the Bill enacted as quickly as possible.

Mr. Jack Straw: Since 16 May 1979, most local authorities have been offering discounts of 33 per cent. to 50 per cent., which are the discounts available under the Bill. Notwithstanding that, sales in the past six months have been 2,500 fewer than during the last six months of the Labour Government. Where is the evidence that the measure is desperately needed? How does the Minister explain that decline in sales?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Member looked carefully at the figures he would realise the fallacy behind his question. He is not in a position to refer to current completions or to those awaiting completion. We do not yet have the statistics of completions currently taking place, namely, the completions that will have arisen as a result of the new opportunities that were created following the change in government. The hon. Member will be aware that, as we have made clear to the House, the second half of 1979 saw levels of completion—22,000 for the half year—that are comparable with the highest levels of completion ever achieved in council house sales. The hon. Mem-

ber will be pleased to see that on the evidence that is available the programme is progressing as successfully as I am sure he would want to see.

Mr. David Alton: Has the Secretary of State seen the report in The Guardian today, which quotes his own Department's figures and demonstrates that sales are down by about 22,000 on what was achieved during the period of the last Conservative Government? Estimates by the Department show that 40,000 houses were sold last year. In those circumstances, surely the Secretary of State must be worried at the continuing decline in the number of sales, not only in the council sector but in the private sector, as a result of the very high levels of mortgage rates.

Mr. Heseltine: I am worried by the effect on the programme of the high levels of mortgage rates. I am sure that the hon. Member will support the Government in whatever way is possible to secure reductions in public expenditure, which alone will bring down the interest rates and therefore the mortgage rates, I share his concern and I welcome his support for the policies that we are pursuing in that direction. As for the report to which the hon. Gentleman drew the attention of the House, I refer him to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I hope that Opposition Members will bear with us until we have the completion figures. Then we shall be able to make judgments about the facts as completions take place consequent upon the change in policy towards the sale of council houses.
There is a very considerable delay between a person applying to buy a council house and the completion of the sale. The House will be very familiar with some of the reasons for this. When the houses were built, it was not anticipated in many cases that they would be sold. The legal documents are not often in existence to enable the legal processes to be completed with dispatch. There is a very considerable time delay, as all local authorities involved in selling council houses have discovered. We are going through that process, and there is bound to be a time delay.
The House will be aware that in the legislation itself there is the assumption that the effective right of ownership becomes relevant from the date on which


the prospective purchaser serves notice on the local authority, so we have done everything in the legislation to anticipate the delay problems and to remove any anxiety which might exist in the minds of prospective purchasers.
It is quite clear that in the minds of many people—not only those who voted for my party at the general election but those who subsequently sought to take advantage of the policies upon which we were elected—there is a desire that the Bill should come into force as quickly as possible. It is, therefore, our clear intention to have the Bill enacted before the House rises for the Summer Recess. I believe that I carry the support of the House in saying that delay beyond that date would be a denial of our promises and of the aspirations of the people who voted for us. It is against that background that the guillotine motion is moved.
I realise at once—Opposition Members have been perfectly frank about it—that parts of the Bill are contentious and complex. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made the position of his party totally clear. He does not like the main provisions of the right to buy and has made it clear that at any subsequent general election the Labour Party will campaign on a clear commitment to withdraw from millions of council tenants the right to buy. He will want to explain to the electorate at large—as he has explained already, so articulately—the implications of those policies at that time, and I do not doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join in the debate as honestly and frankly as they feel able to do. But that is a matter of policy, and it is against the background of a policy commitment of that sort that it is quite understandable that Opposition Members are content to see the Bill proceeding at what one might describe as other than the fastest possible speed.
We have all been in opposition and know the relative responsibilities of being in opposition. I understand the attitudes of Opposition Members, although I cannot, of course, agree with them. But the Bill is important not only in respect of the right to buy council houses. It is important because it gives new rights to those who remain council tenants. It gives rights that Labour Members said that they believed in when their party was in

office. They talked about them a great deal, although they did not legislate for them. We may assume, therefore, that broadly they are in support of that section of the Housing Bill.
The Bill also contains proposals for reviving the private rented sector. I think that again we carry the support, in principle, of hon. Members on each side of the House in trying to create a climate in which the private rented sector might have an opportunity at least to halt the decline that has continued for so long.
There is a great deal in the Bill that carries support from hon. Members in many parts of the House, albeit that there are parts of the Bill which, although carrying such support, had to wait for this Government to come to power before there was a chance to put them on the statute book.

Mr. Frank Allaun: In addition to the two parts that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, there is another important one—the withdrawal of subsidy on a very big scale. Can the Secretary of State deny that the Estimates provide for a reduction of £2½ billion a year within three years in housing expenditure, that is to say, by 50 per cent., which means virtually the extinction of new council house building? In view of that, can he deny the right of a full discussion of the Bill in Committee, in the usual way?

Mr. Heseltine: That question is not relative to the debate in terms of the figures, because it would be perfectly possible to see changes in the housing programme without there being a piece of housing legislation. The hon. Member will know that such downward changes are possible without the Bill, because he supported the Government who presided over those changes so significantly in recent years when the housing programme fell by hundreds of millions of pounds. It did not need this legislation for that process to continue. The remaining levels of housing support anticipated in the Government's public expenditure White Paper allow for a continuing new construction programme at the discretion of local authorities.

Mr. Allaun: How many?

Mr. Heseltine: It depends on the discretion of local authorities. I appreciate


that it is difficult for Labour Members to get used to the fact that if we give freedom to local authorities, they have to be allowed the discretion to exercise that freedom. It is not possible, therefore, for me to say in advance what local authorities will do with that freedom. They may repair houses, they may give mortgages, they may give improvement grants, or they may build new houses—all within the block allocation over which they have discretion. The House will be able to see what happens when local authorities make their own decisions, as opposed to having decisions imposed on them by a central Government Department.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is it not the case that the housing investment programme allocations that the Secretary of State has given to local authorities have meant that many local authorities cannot make any decisions about where they spend the money, because they have been allocated only enough to meet existing commitments? There is no discretion; they have been given discretion to spend nothing, because there is nothing left.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman misses the point, because they have already exercised the discretion. What they may have done is to anticipate the allocation of funds which they did not then in fact receive. [Interruption.] They had already received or assumed receipt of funds and therefore used discretion in allocating part of the funds that they knew they would get. This is a very well-established precedent. The point that Labour Members should remember, inconvenient though it is, is that the policies of their party brought about the decline of new council housing on a scale broadly equivalent to the rates that are assumed in the current position.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: What has the Secretary of State to say about the exercise of freedom by the Greater London Council, which has decided that because of the cuts in housing investment programme allocation it cannot advance any local authority mortgages for the whole of the coming financial year? Mr. George Tremlett, the leader of the housing committee, has said that the Government have allocated the Conservative-controlled council only £156 million of

the £270 million requested, and that £130 million is committed.

Mr. Heseltine: That makes my point exactly. The local authority has discretion over the £156 million. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) would have found it easier to answer the question if he had considered the implications of his Government's policies and their consequences on the national economy. Reductions in public expenditure would have occurred even if the Labour Party had somehow or other secured a return to office. The right hon. Gentleman would have learnt to defend those cuts with the eloquence with which he defended them in the last four or five years. We do not need crocodile tears.
Opposition Members became expert at defending all types of cuts in the most harrowing circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman defended the cuts from the Dispatch Box. He defended housing subsidy cuts as though they were the Ark of the Covenant of Socialist purpose when he was explaining why the cuts were necessary to restore the welfare of the economy. Now he sits in his place as though that had never happened, but it is on record in Hansard.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that my local authority, which has a splendid housing record, has in the past seven years been able to maintain a substantial housing and house improvement programme? Is he aware that its funds are entirely committed to projects that are in hand? The housing improvement and house building programmes will come to a shuddering halt. We did not experience that at any time in the past five or six years. Is the Secretary of State aware that administration, planning and building preparation in local government have been brought to a shuddering halt?

Mr. Heseltine: If that were so the hon. Member would have a passionate case to make to the House. However, he knows that housing has not come to a shuddering halt. He knows that the housing programme continues. In the White Paper we have set out the way in which billions of pounds are to be spent on the housing programme in the coming years. All we are talking about is the level at which the programme will continue.
It is curious that when I reduce the housing programme by one figure, Opposition Members find that unacceptable, although they reduced the programme by the same figure year after year. We all understand that Opposition Members are grubbing around for an argument with which to rally the troops and they have to present their case in the harrowing language used by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). What he said bears no relation to what is happening in his constituency.
I return to the motion. The Standing Committee on the Bill has been sitting for 10½ weeks. Yesterday evening was the 37th sitting, and the Committee has spent 110 hours considering the Bill. It has reached clause 106. When we tabled the guillotine motion, the Committee had reached clause 96. That focused its mind, and it has moved on. I accept that progress has been made. The progress indicates the reasonableness of the motion. The major parts of the Bill providing for rights to buy, the tenants' charter, private sector tenants, housing subsidies, and repairs, have been dealt with. It should not be too difficult to understand that in order to achieve enactment by the Summer Recess there must be a timetable motion.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Does the Secretary of State agree that clause 106 is only half way through the Bill in terms of its pages? Is he aware that the Select Committee on the environment has received a large body of evidence dealing with many aspects of the Bill? Local authorities are almost unanimous, in that they regard the provisions for the sale of flats to be totally unworkable. Is the Secretary of State aware that the schedules require even more detailed consideration than the clauses of the Bill that have been discussed?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the thorough and comprehensive work undertaken by the Select Committee. Virtually all authorities with an interest in housing have been asked to give evidence. I have no doubt that there will be a lengthy and detailed scrutiny, and that an informed judgment will be reached. In every Bill there tends to be a concentration on the early parts, dealing with the more significant provisions.
The Government's view is that we have made reasonable attempts to reach a voluntary arrangement. But that has not proved possible. If we do not secure enactment of the legislation by the summer it will not come into effect until early 1981. The difference between us is three weeks. We believe that it is necessary to end the Committee stage on 1 May. The Opposition say that 22 May is acceptable. But we do not believe that we can guarantee enactment of the legislation by the Summer Recess if we wait that long. The judgment must be based on the question whether the three weeks in dispute entitle us to risk delaying enactment by three months. The Government's clear view is that we would not be justified in frustrating the requirements, ambitions and entitlements, based on electoral promises, of all the tenants involved for the sake of an additional three weeks.

Mr. Kaufman: It is important that the right hon. Gentleman, who paid only one fleeting visit of about five minutes to the Standing Committee, does not misinform the House. He said that it was natural that a Standing Committee should concentrate on the early clauses. We completed the first 26 clauses dealing with the rights to buy before the end of the 13th sitting. That represented a rate of two clauses persitting. That is the rate at which we have proceeded throughout. We neither slowed down nor speeded up. We went at a steady rate throughout. The Secretary of State should withdraw his untrue statement.

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will want to raise those matters when he speaks in the debate. I accept that I was able to visit the Standing Committee only once—a privilege that I shared with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We have all heard the speech on housing by the right hon. Member for Ardwick. He has made it on many occasions and I am sorry that I was not able to hear it in Committee. I am sure that he will make his speech with his usual conviction today.
Under the terms of the motion we can ensure that there will be 10 more sittings of the Committee. That should allow sufficient time. I do not like the idea of asking the House to approve a guillotine motion. Such motions always arouse controversy, but all Governments have to


move them from time to time. I am sure that I shall find such motions unacceptable if I find myself on the Opposition Front Bench.
The motion allots two and a half days for Report and Third Reading. I hope that the House feels that that is a generous allocation. It should provide sufficient opportunity for proper discussion. We propose that the remaining sittings of the Committee should be considered by the Business Sub-Committee in accordance with normal procedure. I do not think that it would be constructive for me to refer in detail, beyond that, to the terms of the motion, which are familiar to all hon. Members.
There is nothing new about the introduction of a guillotine motion. The Bill is of critical importance, and I believe that we are now entitled to ask the House to limit the time taken on it and to ensure that those people who want to benefit from it can plan with certainty that it will be on the statute book, enabling its enactment to take effect some time in the early autumn. With that in mind I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Timetable motion debates tend to take on a depressingly ritual character, and I begin by saying how grateful I was that at the end of his speech the Secretary of State dealt with the subject in a subdued, if not altogether rational, way. Of course, at the beginning he could not resist the old florid temptation to talk about electoral promises and all that. He was so carried away with his own eloquence that he referred to the occasions on which I had defended—according to him, so well—the previous Government's policy of reducing housing subsidies. I am sure that I would have done it very well if that had ever occurred. However, I have never made such a speech. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's faith in my abilities which he hypothetically poses.

Mr. Heseltine: The whole basis of my faith in the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence in defending potential reductions in housing subsidies was the eloquence with which he defended reductions in food subsidies.

Mr. Hattersley: The fact that we have a Secretary of State who thinks that the same economic arguments apply to housing subsidies as those that apply to food subsidies demonstrates a good deal of the problems that tenants face today.
I do not propose to deal with this motion in the traditional, rather florid way in which such motions are normally discussed. I do not think that that is the best way for the House to occupy itself for three hours, and therefore I make it absolutely clear at the outset that our complaint this afternoon is not that the Government's behaviour is constitutionally scandalous, but that it is manifestly unreasonable. I shall attempt to demonstrate its unreasonableness according to three criteria.
The first concerns the size and content of the Bill. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said—he quoted himself this afternoon with his usual pleasure—that the Bill amounted to a "profound social revolution." I said to him, I think with absolute justification, that he ought to accept that profound social revolutions had long Committee stages. It is a piece of elementary logic, if the Bill changes the face of public and private tenancy in this country in the fundamental way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that 129 clauses and 20 schedules, most of them complex and controversial, will undergo very thorough scrutiny. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman ought to welcome that thorough scrutiny.
The second criterion by which I wish to judge the unreasonableness of the motion is the behaviour of the Opposition in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was honest enough to describe the behaviour of my hon. Friends by saying that they had not made totally speedy progress. I think that he phrased it in that subdued way because no one who has attended the Committee—and I have enjoyed that privilege more than once—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twice."] I have attended the Committee more than twice, but then I have the advantage of serving on another Standing Committee next door. Anyone who has read the Official Report of the proceedings of the Committee, as I did at the weekend, would find it impossible to argue that the Labour Members on the Committee had done anything that could remotely


be described as obstructing its procedures or moving towards intentional delay. The only speech of any great length was made by the Minister for Housing and Construction, who addressed the Committee on one occasion for more than 100 minutes. No other speech compares with that in length.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to place on the record the fact that I took the trouble to explain the shorthold provisions at some length. That was welcomed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on that occasion.

Mr. Hattersley: I read the ironic welcome that my right hon. Friend gave and it did not strike me for a moment that the Minister could take my right hon. Friend's words as a compliment, although I sometimes overestimate the Minister's judgments and abilities. I certainly want to deal with what he said on that day about shortholds.
As the Secretary of State said, in 37 sittings the Committee has dealt with 106 clauses, and for a Committee on a Bill of this sort to deal with what amounts to three clauses per sitting is a remarkable, record. There are some who will believe that the Committee was allowed to proceed too quickly.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is significant is the dogs that did not bark? There are a number of Government Members who have very strong views about the concept of shorthold and about compelling local authorities to sell houses, but by the helpful work of the Tory Whips they were not selected to sit on the Committee. Therefore, any opposition from the Government side was silenced from the start.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that that is true, and I notice that all the hon. Members who were explicitly critical of the shorthold provisions—some of them, with whom I shall deal in a moment, made representations to me about what they believed should be a bipartisan approach—did not serve on the Committee. However, I hope that even in the truncated Report stage, if the motion is passed tonight, the Members who spoke

up about shortholds in the last Parliament and who argued that they were tolerable only if there were adequate safeguards, will speak up again. I of course do not include the Under-Secretary, who reported to the Committee that at about the time he joined the Government he had a great conversion about shortholds and discovered the errors of his opinions in the previous Parliament.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will care to quote me accurately instead of speaking on the basis of his flippant glance at Hansard over the weekend. I said that the facts of life bore in upon one when one became a Minister. As the right hon. Gentleman has clearly shown, the facts of life disappear into irresponsibility in his case when he changes sides.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall accept without qualification the Under-Secretary's explanation of his activities. He said the words that I attributed to him. He reminds me of those non-conformist churches which used to exist in the place where I lived as a boy. The Cabinet and the Government must be the same—one can join only if one announces one's conversion from one's previous errors. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary has been baptised in a faith which enabled him to join the Government.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) brings me naturally to the third reason why we believe that the motion is unreasonable. It concerns the form of the Bill. By that I mean not so much its content, which we debated previously, but its nature; not so much its substance but its style. This Bill, like other Bills presented by the Secretary of State, is full of enabling provisions. Clause after clause amount to giving the Secretary of State the right to do what he likes, how he likes, when he likes. There is a long history, as I propose to demonstrate, of the Secretary of State and his Ministers being deeply reluctant to explain their intentions when they have the power to implement the Bill.
Therefore, the Committee has two tasks. It has to probe the Bill's provisions, but it also has to probe Ministers'


intentions, and that is properly and necessarily a long process. I give an immediate example. Clause 116, which has not yet been reached, seeks to repeal what is commonly called the non-profit rule in housing legislation. That rule prevents housing authorities from carrying surpluses on their housing revenue accounts. In other words, it prevents them from making a profit out of corporation tenants. Councils in future will be allowed to make such a profit. On Second Reading, I and other hon. Members asked the Secretary of State what those profits were to be used for. After all, by any standard, making profits on municipal housing is a controversial proposal. It might have seemed reasonable to anyone who debated that proposal that the Secretary of State should tell him how the profits would be used.
The right hon. Gentleman would not tell me on Second Reading. I returned to the subject during the debate on the rate support grant on 16 January. The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services gave me an answer, with which he was visibly delighted. He said:
It is an important and complex issue, and we are considering the alternative possibilities carefully. We shall be making propsals, as promised, shortly."—[Official Report, 16 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1776.]
"Shortly" turned out to be 2 April, the day before the House rose for the Easter Recess.
The hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major)—he may well be in the House, but I do not have the privilege of being able to recognise him—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."]—I now have the privilege of recognising him—was told in a written answer, which has almost entirely escaped public notice, and as far as I and the Library of the House can ascertain it was not reported in any newspaper, that the profits obtained by increasing the rents of council accommodation could be used to subsidise the general rate fund.
That is scandalous in two respects. First, we are now being told that the Government propose to subsidise owner-occupiers and private tenants out of profits made on council accommodation. Secondly, it is doubly scandalous because that intention was made known only on 2 April when the Bill was in Committee.
Frankly, I must tell the Secretary of State that I do not believe that he had not made up his mind until April Fool's Day of this year. I believe that he has known it for some time, and that he has withheld that information from the House and from the Committee. I believe that he did that because he regarded it as a deeply damaging proposal to put forward a few weeks before the municipal elections. He hoped that by sneaking it out in that way, and then having a truncated debate when the Committee reassembled, he would avoid some of the pains and penalties associated with the idea of making profits on municipal housing to subsidise other local authority enterprises.
Although the Secretary of State may believe that this sort of motion and this sort of Committee gag will reduce the amount of publicity attracted to such a proposal, I promise that it is our duty and our intention to ensure that the result will be the exact opposite.
That is an example of why discussion of the Bill must take a long time. Decisions affecting its operation are ground out of the Minister and his colleagues with the greatest of difficulty. I have given an example of a piece of information which was ground out of the Minister, although not in Committee. Indeed, it should have been announced in Committee. The statement that was attached to the answer given to the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire announced that the Secretary of State proposed to embody a provision in the Housing Bill to allow for that. The Committee has not been informed of that proposal. That is an example of why the discussion of the Bill must be prolonged. It is because of the Government's behaviour.
I shall give two other examples which relate to the actual performance of the Minister in Committee. One is the area to which the Secretary of State was rash enough to refer, namely, shorthold. That is a new system of lettings which provides only a limited security of tenure for the tenants.
The Minister, when replying on Second Reading, said that he welcomed a bipartisan approach to the matter. On Second Reading the Minister said:
That is an approach that we wish to follow, because the confidence factor is all-important.


The Opposition tabled a number of amendments to facilitate that bipartisan approach. I am sorry to intrude once more into ministerial grief. Although some of the amendments were similar in text to certain provisions in a previous Conservative Bill, and would have provided safeguards for shorthold tenants, not one was accepted by the Government. So much for a bipartisan approach.
Matters went from bad to worse. Disregarding, rejecting, brushing aside my concern over the abolition of protection—as I believe shortholds to be—the Minister said on Second Reading
a fair rent must be registered at the outset of shorthold."—[Official Report, 15 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1563–4]
He implied that, because rents must be registered, he could not understand why I was making a fuss. It was not until my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who leads for the Opposition in committee, pressed the Minister time and time again that we discovered the meaning of the outset of shortholds.
I shall paraphrase the Minister's description, when he spoke on 13 March, of what might happen on shortholds. He said that the owner of a vacant property was a free agent, who was able to make it available at any time as a shorthold. He said that at the expiry of a shorthold agreement the owner could make a voluntary arrangement with his tenant. That voluntary arrangement could be on a periodic basis—annually, quarterly or monthly. That would be for the tenant and the landlord to decide.
That explanation was prised out of the Minister with the greatest of difficulty, and was virtually denied on Second Reading. It means that within a period of a little more than a year a property can be transferred from a condition which endows its tenant with complete security—so far as it is provided by the Rent Acts—to a security that lasts from month to month, with the rent being adjusted from month to month.
I make this point not because of its flagrant unacceptability to those of us who believe that tenants should be protected against landlords—

Mr. Stanley: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I shall explain my point, and then the Minister is welcome

to intervene. If the Committee is put to the trouble of prising out that sort of essential information, instead of its being advanced openly and willingly by the Minister, the Minister should not be surprised if the Committee takes some time to press him again and again.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a complicated area. A certain amount of that confusion has been revealed by his remarks. He should be aware that during the Committee proceedings we tabled an amendment which made it a legal impossibility for somebody who was a protected tenant to be deprived of his security by virtue of his becoming a shorthold tenant.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, but that is not the point that I was making. The point I was making is clear: once a person has entered into a shorthold tenancy, according to the Minister—I shall read the quotation in extenso if that is what the Minister wishes—at the end of the shorthold tenancy it is for the tenant and the landlord to negotiate the best deal that they can.
Our position is that the relationship between the tenant and the landlord is never an equal one, and the idea that they are negotiating equally is nonsense.

Mr. Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: The Secretary of State can dig out his hon. Friend if that is what he wishes.

Mr. Heseltine: It is not a question of digging out anyone else. As the House understands, the supply of rented accommodation has been in decline for as long as any of us can remember. We are all trying to find ways of reversing or at any rate halting that position. The dilemma about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking is that, if there is a fully protected position in a shorthold, unless some reasonable position is provided at the end of the shorthold, the landlord will, in his own defence, find it necessary to terminate the arrangement and obtain possession. Unless he does that, he is conferring upon the tenant rights the existence of which will prevent him from letting the property.
It is vital to the House that right hon. and hon. Members should understand that the existence of those rights, unless there is some way round this difficulty, will


prevent the properties coming on to the market at all. That is the problem with which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing. It must be dealt with extremely carefully, or we shall find that the decline in the private rented sector continues.

Mr. Hattersley: The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's long intervention was the best argument against shortholds that I have heard for a long time. I have two complaints about his remarks. First, we are opposed in principle to that system. That is why we are pledged to repeal it when we return to office. Secondly, why did he not tell us the facts in the first place? Why was it that on Second Reading all our fears about occasional tenancies, periodic tenancies and monthly tenancies, with increases in rent month by month, were dismissed? Why was the matter not made clear there and then?

Mr. Stanley: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: A third time? Of course.

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry to intervene again. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is not correct to talk about increases in rent month by month. The shorthold tenant is a protected tenant. The Rent Acts apply in exactly the same way to the shorthold tenant as they do to every other tenant. If a rent has been registered on property, it applies in exactly the same way as any registered fair rent.

Mr. Hattersley: But the Minister will be able to hear all those hon. Members who serve on the Committee saying what appears in his own statement, that the requirement to register can be removed. He must not try to take advantage of the House in that way. Our complaint is two-fold. First, the situation is as the Minister described it to the Committee and, secondly, he should have told the House rather than required the Committee to grind on until that information was wrung out of him.
I take another example from yesterday, when the same Minister revealed, almost absent-mindedly, some of the facts about mortgages about which the Opposition have been pressing the Government for the last year. I have lost count of the number of occasions on which I have asked the Secretary of State what effect he expects the sale of council houses to

have on the private mortgage sector, the provision of private mortgages and the cost of private mortgages. He has always given me one of two answers. They conflict, but on a couple of occasions he has given both conflicting answers, namely, that he does not know and that it will be market forces which determine the level and the availability.
Yesterday however, the Minister gave the Committee some new and extraordinary information concerning the effect of the sale of council houses, at least on local authority mortgages. His comments are recorded in column 1944 of the Standing Committee Hansard. He said that it would be the Government's intention that in respect of a family buying their own house, if they were to obtain a mortgage for buying that house from the corporation, and if the house they chose to buy was a speculatively-built house—a house already in private occupation—the local authority would look at the mortgage rate in a certain way. It would either be the local avearge rate, which is the equivalent of the pool rate, or the standard national rate, which is probably the equivalent of the building society rate, whichever is the higher.
On the other hand, a tenant buying a council house would be required by the Government to be provided with a mortgage from the local authority at the level of interest prevailing—a lower rate than the mortgage provided for a prospective private house buyer. One of the net results of the sale of council houses is that from local authorities at least there is to be a two-tier interest rate. If a person buys a council house, there will be a low interest rate. If he buys any other sort of house, there will be a high interest rate.
As well as being absolutely opposed to the principle, we are deeply opposed—and so should Concervative Members who respect this place—to such information being withheld until it is prised out during long sittings of the Committee.
Having dealt with that example, I conclude by dealing with what I believe to be the worst example of all of the way in which the Government have wilfully withheld information which, had it been provided, would have made the Committee's deliberations a great deal easier and clearer than has been possible to date.


The worst example of all relates to part I of the Bill, which deals with the compulsory sale of council houses irrespective of the needs of the area in which they are being sold and irrespective of the judgment of the elected representatives who in law may be required to sell them.
The Secretary of State continues to accuse me of the intention of repealing that part of the Bill. I plead absolutely guilty, and, as he rightly prophesied, I shall continue to explain to the people of this country why the judgment about selling should be made according to the needs of the area rather than according to the ideology of the Conservative Party. However, the overall opposition to compulsory sales is not the point with which I want to deal this afternoon, nor is it one with which it would be appropriate for me to deal.
I want to deal with the more narrow point relating to the conduct of the Bill. The practical effect of selling council houses on the lives of ordinary men and women who want to rent such a house, or to move within the local authority pool from an unsuitable house to a suitable one, depends on two factors. It depends on the number of houses which are being sold in the area, thus reducing the rented sector, and on the number of houses which are being built in the area, thus increasing the rented sector. Therefore, very reasonably, from the day on which that proposal was put before the House, we have asked the Secretary of State to give some information about the prospective levels of new house construction in this country.
He has always refused. At least, he refused until 21 February, when he made a statement of sorts. That statement was described by New Society as "wilful obfuscation". The housing magazine "Roof" described it as "calculated to mislead". Both those conditions have been demonstrated by the Secretary of State today, when he told us that that was a matter of local authority discretion and that, therefore, the number of houses built by local authorities was largely a matter for them and one which was up to them.
That is literally untrue. The number of houses built by local authorities is crucially determined by the overall capital allocation which the Secretary of State

provides. For very many authorities, the allocation for next year is no larger than that which is needed to fulfil their existing building commitments. No matter what they choose, it will be impossible for many authorities to build even one house next year. In fact, when it was deciphered, the statement of 21 February—I propose to decode parts of it in a moment—meant that new council house building had been brought virtually to an end. For one or two authorities it will literally be brought to an end in 1980–81, and many more will suffer the same fate in 1981–82.
My complaint today is not that the right hon. Gentleman has presided over the ending of council house buliding but that he has not been sufficiently frank with the House in saying that that is what he has done. Let me give him two examples from the statement of 21 February, which was supposed to reveal all those things to us. First, that statement compared actual spending in one year, a Labour year, with authorised spending in another year, a Conservative year. But it is well known that authorised spending is always higher than actual spending. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman chose to compare two figures which were not only bogus but calculated to give his argument the best possible gloss.
Secondly, and statistically an even more heinous crime, he talked about a capital allocation which he said was £2·2 billion at 1981 survey prices, and then admitted that he was responsible for a cut of £540 million. However, that figure turns out to be at 1979 survey prices. He has fiddled the figures and manipulated them in such a way as to minimise the size of the cuts. He must understand that, as well as that doing nothing for his reputation, it requires my right hon. and hon. Friends, who treat these matters not only with seriousness but with integrity, to pursue those questions at length both in Committee and on Report.

Mr. Heseltine: We shall not be able to resolve this matter today because we are talking about statistics which are relevant to future new building programmes. However, in order to have a means of judging the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions—he said that I had brought new


council house building to a halt—may I ask whether he meant that in 1982–83 and 1983–84, when my policies will have effect, no new council houses would be built.

Mr. Hattersley: I think that it will be exactly as the right hon. Gentleman said in an unguarded moment. Council house starts in those years will be for the old and for the very special categories—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] With great respect, that is the figure which counts when we are calculating the loss through sales versus the additions through building. In 1981–82 and 1982–83, there will be virtually no building for general need, and in many areas there will literally be no building for general need. Let me explain, by accepting one of his statistically fraudulent assumptions, how is it possible to compare the outturn of one year with the allocation of another.
On the best evidence, it is assumed that the outturn for 1979–80 will be about £3·2 billion. The allocation for 1980–81—which is too large a figure for sensible comparison—is only £2·2 billion. Even according to the phoney criteria of the right hon. Gentleman, that is a net loss of £1 billion. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman asking me whether I am telling him that that means there will be no building in some areas in 1981–82. It means that there will be no new building in some areas this year. I have a long list—although the Secretary of State does not need my evidence, because he has a longer list—of authorities which have already announced that there will be no new housing starts in their areas this year.

Mr. Allan Roberts: In answer to my previous intervention, the Secretary of State said that local authorities had already exercised their options, and had already spent their money on commitments. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Secretary of State that one-year allocations do not allow local authorities to do anything other than that in the face of the allocations that they had been given? He may or may not know that it takes longer than one year to plan to build, and to build a house.

Mr. Hattersley: I had thought of commenting on the answer given by the Sec-

retary of State about local authorities having exercised their options by spending money which the right hon. Gentleman had not provided last year. However, it seemed such a nonsensical notion that I considered, on reflection, that it would be kinder not to return to that absurd idea. If the Minister of State wishes to explain and justify it during the course of the debate, we await with fascination an explanation of the Secretary of State's statement.
In the meantime, I wish to give three examples of what is happening—thanks to the allocation programme. I take my examples from the West Midlands, an area which I am privileged to represent. The Conservative-controlled council in Birmingham has abandoned all new contracts for building. The Labour council in Coventry has abandoned all new contracts for house building. In Walsall, where there is no overall majority—although there will be in a fortnight's time—the council has also abandoned all new contracts for building. They have done so because the money allocated to them by the Secretary of State allows them to fulfil existing commitments, but does not allow them to do anything more.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I wish to conclude on this note. I hope that, by my concluding my speech quickly, my hon. Friend will be able to put his views.
The points that I have made are not essentially concerned with the merits of the Bill. They give a clear indication of our views of the merits of the Bill, but they are concerned with the way in which the Bill has been presented and with the Government's continued attempt to keep the facts about the Bill from hon. Members.
Our complaint is not that the guillotine motion is a sign of the Government's wickedness. It is a sign of their weakness. It is a desire not to be inconvenienced or embarrassed further by the truth of their intentions being revealed in Committee. My experience of motions and stratagems of this sort is not that they allow the deception to continue but that they draw attention to the deceptions. We believe that that is how the debate should proceed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the House that this debate is limited to three hours. Relatively short contributions will enable the Chair to call all hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. John Major: I am grateful for this early opportunity to bring myself to the attention of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I am sorry that when I have intervened during the Department of Environment Question Time, he has not noticed my interventions. Perhaps that rather faulty memory accounts for some of the matters that he has forgotten during the period of the previous Labour Government. None the less, I shall seek to bring myself to his attention many times during this Parliament.
During the next few moments I propose to adopt the novel concept of speaking to whether there should be a guillotine. There are two specific reasons why I am happy to vote for the Government motion. First, I believe that the Bill needs and deserves to become law at the earliest possible opportunity. Secondly, it is highly desirable that the remaining time available within the Government's programme should be allocated in such a fashion as to ensure that there is reasoned discussion on all the important parts of the Bill that we have not reached. There are many important points to be discussed on leasehold and other matters, and a reasoned and moderate discussion may be achieved, because the timetable motion is likely to concentrate minds wonderfully.
I understand the view presented by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and it will no doubt be echoed by his right hon. Friend for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). They do not like the Bill. They do not agree with the Bill, and they do not like the concept of the guillotine motion. But we have already debated the Bill for more than 100 hours, and there is more debate to come. It will be subject to scrutiny in the other place, and there is a two and a half day allocation for Report and Third Reading. That seems to be a sufficient allocation, even for a controversial Bill.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook blamed the Government for pro-

foundly unreasonable behaviour in guillotining the Bill. I should like to draw to his attention the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) on the occasion of the guillotine of another serious and controversial Bill—the Education Bill in 1976. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said:
To talk about curtailing discussion of a Bill on which we have already spent 100 hours is to stand logic on its head."—[Official Report, 8 November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 53.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consult his right hon. Friend later this evening to determine whether he accepts that as an accurate statement.
We had a frank discussion in Committee, and in the temporary—I hope—absence of the right hon. Member for Ardwick, I should like to say that the Committee stage was conducted in a reasonable manner most of the time.
I revert to the guillotine for a moment, since this is the subject under discussion. On the occasion of the guillotine in 1976, we had two guillotines for the price of one. On that occasion both measures were guillotined after a discussion lasting for one hour. There was a guillotine on the guillotine.
If the Opposition believe—as they frequently seem to suggest in Committee—that the Bill, and the intention to guillotine it, is a wicked unilateral act of devilment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am pleased to take this opportunity to disabuse them. The Bill was a prime election commitment, and my constituents cannot understand why it is not already on the statute book. In my area a fairly enlightened local authority is selling council houses and implementing a series of reasonable policies. That is not universally so. In many areas—almost exclusively controlled by Labour councils—council houses are not sold. However, that is not so in all cases. Some Labour councillors will sell houses, and several Labour councillors will buy council houses.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman said that the policy of selling council houses was an election commitment by the Government. However, other electorates have committed their local authorities not to sell council houses. The hon. Gentleman said that for the most part


Labour-controlled authorities were refusing to sell. He must know that a large number of Conservative-controlled councils informed Shelter that they did not want to be compelled to sell council houses.

Mr. Major: This policy was stated clearly to the electorate, and the Government's prime concern is to honour their election commitment. The circumstances were similar to those surrounding the Education Bill in 1976, when the hon. Member joined his colleagues in overriding the views of many Conservative-controlled education authorities. I suggest that a certain degree of consistency might be merited. During the election campaign we promised beyond a shred of doubt a statutory right to buy without delay, a tenants' charter and shorthold provisions. We have now been in office for one year, and we have delayed long enough. We should now bring those promises to the statute book, and ensure that the rights that we promised people are available.
I know that the Opposition have claimed—and the right hon. Member for Ardwick will no doubt claim this passionately later—that we have made very good progress on the Bill and that we could complete it without a timetable motion. I agree that we have made relatively good progress. But it does not necessarily follow that I agree that we can complete the Bill within reasonable time to ensure that it becomes law before the summer without the timetable motion. Perhaps we can, but it is not certain.
In Committee, from time to time we reached especially contentious points. On such occasions the right hon. Gentleman turned loose his hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), who have an infinite capacity to speak at moderate length on subjects well within the rules of order. On one occasion the hon. Member for Bootle was on his feet for 28 minutes making one speech—or, to be more precise, making one four-minute speech seven times during a 28-minute intervention. It occurred to me on that occasion—and I recall the thought now—that, as the French General Pierre Bosquet said at the battle of Balaclava:
It is magnificent, but it is not war.

Certainly the speech made by the hon. Member for Bootle on that occasion was entertaining, but it was not progress. We need to make progress desperately on the Bill to bring it into law at the earliest possible moment.
If there were to be no guillotine, if we were to accept the good will of the Opposition and to decide that no timetable motion was necessary, we would lay open ourselves to the possibility between now and the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill that at any stage the Opposition might suddenly discover something that they disliked to such an extent that they would seek disproportionate delay. The right hon. Member for Ardwick may shake his head, but that may happen. The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that he had discovered areas in the Bill which were far worse than he imagined they could be. If that is so again, there may be some form of disproportionate delay which I should not wish to try to explain to my constituents.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that no time had been wasted in Committee and that there were very few indications of exceptionally long, single filibusters. That I accept without question. But time has been wasted in Committee that could have been spent discussing the Bill.
We have spent a substantial time in Committee—many hon. Members serving on the Committee are in the Chamber now and they know it—discussing not the provisions of the Bill, but the delights of Ardwick by day and by night and the horrors of Fort Ardwick. We have discussed the virtues of the Manchester city council at length. I should have thought that the virtues of Manchester city council would have been the subject of a very short debate, but apparently not. We discussed the rather curious habit of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of arresting his constituents as they go about their business. We also discussed the fact that the hon. Member for Bootle was unable to get a council house and was forced, poor chap, to go out and become an owner-occupier. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We were all very sorry and sad about that. Entertaining it may have been, but it was not germane to discussion of the Bill, and in aggregate it amounted to a considerable degree of wasted time.

Mr. Straw: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite the occasional entertainment that we have provided to Conservative Members, who otherwise have been required to keep their mouths shut and their heads down in deference to the Whips, the Committee has made more progress than any other Committee on any major Bill since the election? Indeed, its progress has been twice the rate of any other Committee on a major Bill.

Mr. Major: That is precisely because we have given Opposition Members so much time to speak, about which the hon. Gentleman was sarcastic. As another example of time-wasting, one had only to mention the word "landlord" in Committee to see a glazed look come over the faces of Opposition Members. Indeed, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is sitting there, looking entranced, again. I have mentioned the buzz word and a look of entraced enlightenment has come over him as he considers the wickedness of landlords. If the hon. Gentleman had been the commander of the walls of Jericho when they fell down, he would have blamed the landlord for poor maintenance, not himself. No doubt, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick would say, had they been under the care of Manchester city council, that could not possibly have occurred.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Better than Ronan Point.

Mr. Major: It may be better than Ronan Point. It may even be better than a number of other things as well. However, even the hon. Gentleman was somewhat puzzled when it occurred to him that a tenant might sublet. A tenant is, of course, very worthy, but if he sublets he becomes a landlord and not at all worthy. It was most painful to see Opposition Members struggling with their psyche during the period when they uncovered this.
Presiding over these delaying tactics with a benign and delightful expression on his face has been the right hon. Member for Ardwick. As a newcomer to the House, it has been a delight for me to observe the tactical manoeuvrings of the right hon. Gentleman. He has the most effective air of injured innocence that I have ever seen. He is perfectly able to crank himself into a position where he

can be as thoroughly unhelpful as possible while stating that he is seeking to give every ounce of co-operation to the Committee. That has occurred throughout what I concede has been a most enjoyable Committee stage, but one, none the less, that I hope we shall see concluded by 1 May.
We have a clear mandate, a clear commitment, for the Bill. We have had long—perhaps already over-long—discussion on the Bill. There has been some time-wasting, albeit spread widely and not significant and locked together in a single block. I believe that there is considerable justification for this reasonable timetable motion to ensure that there is reasoned and balanced discussion within fixed time limits of the clauses that remain. I believe that the time has come when we can proceed on what will come to be looked at as one of the most remarkable social Bills that we have had for many years, and that it will give many people a freedom of opportunity that has not existed in the past. I trust that the timetable motion will be passed.

Mr. John Tilley: I think that we are now hearing some of the qualities of knockabout humour that Conservative Members were not allowed to indulge in in Committee.

Mr. Major: I promise to indulge in them after the timetable motion has been passed.

Mr. Tilley: We are grateful for the fact that we are only now having to endure them. I view with trepidation the promise that we shall endure them even more up to 1 May.
Like the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major), I should like specifically to talk about the guillotine. I do not suggest that all guillotines are evil or that Governments should not at certain times have ultimate control over their legislative timetables. However, we have to examine the reason why the Government have brought in this guillotine motion on this Bill.
One possibility is that they expected to get further with the Bill than they have done and therefore they feel that they must now have a guillotine. I do not think that is a reasonable explanation because, as hon. Members on both sides of the


House have admitted, considerable progress has been made on the Bill. Indeed, all the indications were that the Government, in their guessing about what would happen, thought that they might get bogged down on the right to buy or on the tenants' charter. That did not happen.
Having got through 100 clauses, it is a peculiar action for the Government now to introduce a guillotine, unless they had already decided, when they put the Bill before the House three months ago, to guillotine it. If so, that would be reprehensible behaviour, because the Government would be abusing the procedures of the House by trying to get what are three or four major Bills through under the guise of one Bill.
Election promises are, of course, pressing on a new Government, but those promises could have been put into operation in a much shorter Bill which could have gone through much quicker. There is more in the Bill than the three election promises mentioned by Conservative Members. That explanation is not acceptable because it does not make sense.
The only other explanation for the guillotine being brought in at this time—I believe it is the genuine explanation—is that the Government wish to stifle debate on what the Bill is all about. The public are becoming aware of what the Bill will do for them, be they intending owner-occupiers, council tenants or private tenants. Though a certain number of council tenants will benefit from what is effectively a major handout of public money if they exercise their right to buy, the majority of council tenants will experience nothing more than rents at a level higher than ever before envisaged because the subsidy proposals will enable the Government to blackmail councils which do not want to increase rents to increase them to the level required by the Government.
It is possible not only for the council to make a profit on council housing and put that profit into the general rate pool but for the Government to insist that councils do that. That is the prospect that faces the majority of council tenants as a result of the Bill. In addition, because of the subsidy proposals, fewer repairs will be done and fewer transfers will be available.

As for the tenants' charter, we spent a long time trying to get the Government to admit the principle of consultation with tenants' associations. Anyone who has any knowledge of council tenants knows that the only way in which they can make their collective voice heard is through the local tenants' associations. The Government would not have those words in the Bill in any circumstances. That has been brought out in Committtee and that is why the Government want to stifle and end the debate.
What I have just said is nothing compared with what we proved will happen to the 3 million private tenants who are desparately affected by the rent implications hidden in the Bill. The Government's simple proposal—as was brought out in Committee—is that the only way to revive the private sector is to allow profits to increase, rents to rise steeply and to reduce security of tenure so that landlords can rid themselves of tenants more easily and establish a free market in rents.
In Committee, we heard—indeed, we have heard more about it from the Secretary of State today—evidence about what shorthold means. It means that any family that has to take a shorthold tenancy will find that at the end of the period—which will almost certainly be 12 months—it will have virtually no hold on the property. Perhaps we should have put forward an amendment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) suggested, to the effect that for "shorthold" we should read "stranglehold", because that will be the position of the majority of private tenants. Private tenants are becoming aware of this and a campaign about their rights is building up. They are putting pressure on Conservative Members who represent areas of inner cities, such as inner London, where many of the private tenants who voted for the Conservatives will be affected severely by the measures contained in the Bill. I suggest that that is why the Government want to impose a guillotine.
In Committee, we have shown that underneath the various layers of provisions on mortgages and subsidies lies the hidden fact that first-time buyers in inner cities have also had it. In my area of the London borough of Lambeth, the Conservative-controlled GLC has said


that it cannot provide any more mortgages. In the same week, the Labour-controlled Lambeth council was driven to the same conclusion because of the parsimonious allocations of money for the housing investment programme.
We went into this debate feeling that any attempt to boost private landlordism in the way suggested by the Government was morally wrong; we also thought that it would not work. We must ask the Government, ourselves and society as a whole—how many times we have to go through the horrors and scandals of Rachmanism under which tenants in inner city areas suffer before we find a public alternative to private sector landlordism. That was an issue that we brought to the attention of the Government in Committee, and they had no answer.
Though the guillotine will curb the debate, what it will also do—which is the real intention of the Secretary of State—is implement the proposals contained in the Bill sooner. The Bill will begin to bite, and as it does the private tenants' campaign and the campaign by council tenants against it will grow steadily as the misery, insecurity and high cost imposed by it bear down on the population.
The Government are not doing themselves a favour by imposing a guillotine. Once the Bill is enacted they will have sown the seeds of their own destruction at the next general election when the 9 million tenants—3 million private tenants and 6 million council tenants—vote on the basis of what the Bill has done to them.

Mr. Graham Bright: A little less than a year ago the people of Britain chose a new Government who were committed to a decisive change in the way that we ran our affairs. Nowhere was that commitment clearer than on housing. The Conservative Party promised to widen the opportunities for home ownership, to give council house tenants the right to buy their own homes and, if they wished, to enjoy security of tenure under a new charter that would be provided. We also said that we would revise the private rented sector. We put our policies clearly and openly to the electorate and won its approval. We have

kept our word to the electorate in the Housing Bill because it embodies those promises.
The Bill has been discussed extensively in Committee, as Opposition Members know. I am sure that all hon. Members regret the necessity for the introduction of a guillotine motion, but there comes a time when not only the needs of the House in regard to time have to be met but the expectations of the country have to be realised. That time has now come, and it would be wrong for this vital Bill to be further delayed.
I appreciate that Opposition Members are opposed to many of the proposals contained in the Bill. Every legitimate means of opposition to the Bill has been heard in Committee. We have listened to objections in principle and in practice and to amendments in general and in detail at each of our Committee meetings—and we have had 37 sittings. I make no complaint about that, but Opposition Members cannot legitimately complain because we are doing what we said we would do.
There is overwhelming evidence that the people of Britain expect to have the opportunity to buy their own homes. Why this opportunity should be denied to the millions of people who live in council houses is something that Opposition Members have yet to explain clearly. This is a right that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe must exist in practice.

Mr. Winnick: As the hon. Member is so anxious to give council tenants the right to buy, which is the subject of continual debate, what about the rights of private tenants? Should he not be equally enthusiastic about their right to buy the properties in which they live?

Mr. Bright: I am anxious to see everyone have the opportunity and the right to buy his own home, and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to work towards that end. The Housing Bill, which is now in Committee, will ensure that tenants gain the right to purchase. We must end the situation in which one-third of the homes in Britain are held by district councils in a form of permanent feudal overlordship. The wider home ownership is spread, the better it will be for the people of Britain. It is tragic that the private rented sector has


been hit so severely by short-sighted legislation in the past few years. Rent controls and security of tenure provisions introduced by Labour Governments since 1974 have driven more than 400,000 dwellings off the market. For newly married couples, workers whose jobs involve a high degree of mobility—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Bright: No. I wish to keep going. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants the opportunity to participate in the debate.
The shortage to which I was referring has been a severe handicap for newly married couples, workers whose jobs involve a high degree of mobility, and students seeking lodgings. That has been brought home to me in my constituency.
The need to expand the number of privately rented dwellings from the present 13 per cent. of the total is important. I am convinced that the introduction of shorthold tenure in the private sector for a fixed term and a fair rent will be the key to reviving the entire sector. Tenants will have the security of tenure that they need, and landlords will have the assurance that they will be able to regain possession on a specific date if they wish.
I remind the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the anachronism in 1980 is not the private landlord but his medieval fantasy about benevolent municipal landlords and controlled rents. As a nation our priority in housing should be to sweep away the distinction between the rights enjoyed by owner-occupiers and those enjoyed by council tenants. That is why the tenants' charter enshrined in the Bill is so important.
We recognise the importance of security of tenure and the right of succession. I am sure that that is recognised by Labour Members. The difference between us is that we have acted to ensure it. We have gone further in sweeping away petty regulations on lodgers and subletting which have restricted the freedom of local authority tenants for so long. As a member of a Labour-controlled district council for 14 years, I could never understand why council tenants were so confined by rules and regulations over improvements and redecorations.
The Bill will establish reasonable arrangements in that area. At long last tenants will have full information on the procedures employed for allocating, transferring and exchanging accommodation. They will have to be consulted when matters affecting their tenancies arise. The balance has shifted in their favour, and I fail to see why they should have to wait any longer for the Bill to become law.
The Bill deals with complex matters. Its operation will have to be carefully monitored. I have said that in Committee. The measures that it contains will promote wider home ownership and a fairer balance between landlords and their tenants. There will be the opportunity to use resources released by the sale of council houses to improve existing properties and to expand our future programme. It is not satisfactory for council house rents to cover only 43p of every £1 spent on municipal housing. Experience in Leeds and Nottingham shows how sales can provide resources for local housing programmes. I have heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on the Floor of the House or in Committee to demonstrate that there will be any loss to the taxpayer or ratepayer arising from sales. Indeed, sales are the key to finding new resources. We are taking action to make provision for improvement grants more flexible.
The Bill is the most important housing measure to come before the House for many years. An immense amount of time has been devoted to it in Committee. We have sought and won the approval of the people of Britain for such measures. We have sought and won the approval of the House. Labour Members have had every opportunity to state their case. Our duty is to ensure that the British people have the chance to take advantage of the opportunity presented to them in the Bill. That is why the House should support the motion.

Mr. Jack Straw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) on his speech. I was delighted to hear from him. Throughout the 37 sittings of the Committee we have heard from him only once. I regret to say that I was not present on that occasion.

Mr. Bright: I have spoken on three occasions in Committee.

Mr. Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman spoke for longer in aggregate today than throughout the 37 sittings in Committee.
Every Government have the right to get their legislation through the House. Therefore, I do not protest at the principle of the guillotine. It is an inevitable fact of modern parliamentary life. However, during the two previous guillotine debates in this Session, on the Social Security Bill and the Education (No. 2) Bill, the Ministers concerned made it clear, in the words of the Leader of the House on 29 January, that:
no Government should resort to a guillotine lightly.
The right hon. Gentleman added:
That is so. It is certainly true, too, that the case for its employment should be clearly proved". [Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 1268.]
I noted this afternoon that those words were not quoted by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Leader of the House was in and out of the Chamber for a short while before leaving altogether. It may be that he left the debate because he, too, was discomforted by the Government's decision to press ahead with the guillotine motion.
No guillotine motion has been less justified in recent parliamentary history than this one. First, it is impossible for the Government to complain about the lack of progress in Committee. The Secretary of State accepts that there has been progress—those were his exact words—in Committee. As I said to the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major), consideration of the Bill in Committee has proceeded at a far faster rate than that of any other major Bill this Session. We have proceeded at the rate of almost three clauses per sitting compared with an average of one clause per sitting for four other major Bills that have been through Committee recently.
Secondly, there has been no time-wasting or serious filibustering. There have been moments when we have had to introduce a certain amount of humour. Despite that, we have proceeded seriously to debate the issues. We have agreed to uncontentious clauses with the barest of explanation or discussion.
Thirdly—this is the most serious charge, and one to which there is no answer—it is impossible for the Government to claim that the Bill would not have emerged from Committee in time for it to go to another place, return to this place and be enacted properly before the summer, and certainly before the end of the Session in the autumn. The Secretary of State admitted that all that was between the Opposition and the Govern-was a matter of three weeks—namely, whether the Bill emerged from Committee on 1 May or 26 May. I was surprised to hear that there is anxiety about whether the Bill will receive Royal Assent before July if it emerges from Committee on 26 May. I was astonished to hear that. It can only mean that the Government are anticipating major opposition to the denial of democratic rights to local authorities when the Bill goes to another place, as there was over the Education (No. 2) Bill and as there will be over the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.
It is interesting to try to work out why the Government are so concerned about getting the Bill enacted before July. One can understand why they want it to become law. The only reason that I can think of is that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister wish to have at least one good thing that they can claim to their credit among the record of disasters at the Conservative Party conference in October. That must be the prime reason for enacting the Bill before July.
We have been told by the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire that he has had many letters from his constituents in which they claim that they want to buy their council houses. Unless the revolution has already occurred and I have not noticed, Huntingdonshire is a Conservative area. Since 16 May 1979 local authorities have been able to offer exactly the same discounts as those that appear in the Bill. Despite the large discounts and the fact that no local authority has changed hands since last year, the number of tenants coming forward to buy their council houses, as the institute of Housing indicated yesterday and as was published in The Guardian today, has decreased compared with the number who came forward during the previous Labour Administration. I hope that we shall hear no more from Conservative Members that there is a desperate


clamour for the right to buy throughout the country.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The byproduct of the Government's policy is that those who live in inner London areas and who want to move out have not been allowed to do so. Sales may have decreased, but there have been no transfers from Hackney to outer areas.

Mr. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend's point. As the Government have already granted general consent to local authorities to sell council houses at discounts of up to 50 per cent., there is no urgent need for the Bill to be enacted, Those Tory councils that wish to exercise this policy, have the power to do so now.
Apart from the political necessity of enacting the Bill in time for the Conservative Party conference, why are the Government so anxious to stifle discussion in such an undemocratic way? The truth is that this Bill is not only about the sale of council houses. That is the tinsel on the poisoned cake. This Bill is about the destruction of a housing policy that has been pursued on a broadly bipartisan basis since the war. It concerns the demolition of the public housing effort, the dramatic raising of council rents and, worst of all, the ending of security of tenure for all private tenants.
In Committee, we are unable to change any of the clauses because the Government have a majority. However, we have turned a spotlight on the intentions and effect of the Government's proposals. The Government have been continually discomfited and embarrassed by that exposure. As a result, they now wish to turn off the spotlight. Let us look at the effect of that exposure in respect of tenants in the private sector. The shorthold provisions were presented in an innocuous and anodyne way by the Secretary of State. On Second Reading, he said that these shorthold provisions were designed to improve the amount of rented accommodation. He said that changes in the rights of those tenants with resident landlords—an important sector—would merely simplify the present procedures. However, as a result

of our probing in Committee, it has emerged that the Government's intentions are very different.
When the Conservative Party was in Opposition, the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) proposed shorthold tenancies with the active support of Conservative Members who—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said—are now on the Front Bench. He proposed shorthold provisions that contained major safeguards to ensure that they did not undermine the existing system of regulated and protected tenancies. Those safeguards ensured that shortholds could be created only for vacant and self-contained properties, and those with high physical standards. It was proposed that rents would be fixed in advance and, above all, that a shorthold tenant would have the right of first refusal when his tenancy came to an end, should the landlord wish to continue letting the property. Even the shorthold tenant would have been given some security of tenure.
The Government have abandoned every one of those safeguards. To their embarrassment and discomfiture, they have turned down all our amendments, which had been designed to introduce the same safeguards that were in the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Kensington and supported by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). At the end of the year a tenant may find himself out on his ear at three months' notice. The Minister cannot suggest that that tenant could have his rent registered and regulated. If a tenant went to the rent officer, he would pay the penalty of eviction. The Bill contains no protection against that.
The Bill destroys the security of tenure of tenants with resident landlords. Since 1977 they have had little security. Under clause 64 they will get none. My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) rightly described the Bill as a "rent Bill." It will destroy the security of tenure of all new tenants. The Law Society is no revolutionary body, yet it said that regulated and protected tenancies under the Rent Act 1977 would become obsolete. This is a rent Bill, and it is as vicious, vindictive, and destructive of security of tenure as the 1957 Bill. No one should have any doubt about that.
The Secretary of State said that we had almost come to the end of the Bill. He knows that we have got only halfway through it. There are masses of provisions packed away in the schedules, and they require detailed discussion. They need far more discussion than would be possible in the next five days. The guillotine motion is wholly unjustified. The case for it has not been proved.
However, it is entirely in character that the Secretary of State has attempted to push it through. He does not care a jot about democratic rights, or the rights of minorities to scrutinise his proposals. I am sure that that has been made clear not only by the comments of Opposition Members but by those of leading Conservatives both in the House and outside. Other proposals of the Secretary of State have been described as "undemocratic and unworkable" by none other than the Conservative leader of the GLC, Sir Horace Cutler. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), a former Conservative Secretary of State and no revolutionary, described yet another of the Secretary of State's proposals as being symptomatic of an elective dictatorship.
Perhaps the most pertinent and astonishing remark that I have heard during the 11 months that I have been in the House came from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). He called upon the imagery of Nazi Germany when describing the Secretary of State's "right to buy" proposals. As a result of the way in which the Secretary of State had put forward those proposals, the hon. Gentleman described him as the "gauleiter of housing". He was right to describe him as such. A gauleiter of housing is what he is. By jack-booting his way through the House with a guillotine motion and by denying its democratic rights, he is jack-booting his way through the security and peace of mind of 3 million private tenants, and he is destroying the housing hopes of hundreds of thousands of those who are in genuine housing need.

Mr. John Heddle: The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) referred to private landlordism and the shorthold provisions as "morally wrong". He said that they

would not work. That reminds me of the splendid Guinness advertisement
I don't like it because I've never tried it.
It is that negative and sterile attitude that should be brought to an end by the guillotine.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major), in many ways I regret the Committee's departure. I shall miss the wit, repartee, and the cross-party banter. I shall miss the Latin puns, the Greek quotations, the step-by-step tour of every hon. Member's constituency, and the handkerchief-full of crocodile tears that have been shed about derelict properties and poor, exploited tenants. Never once did we hear that for every year during the period of the previous Labour Administration 125,000 units of accommodation—houses, flats or bungalows—came off the private rented market because of the stranglehold of rent control.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Heddle: I shall not give way, because the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), for whom I have the highest regard and greatest respect, occupied our attention for 10 minutes or more.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that his Department received letters by the sackful from the electorate, asking when they would be able to exercise the right to buy. Every hon. Member receives letters every day from his constituents, asking when the Government will fulfil their election promise to give council tenants the right to buy and to give others, particularly young married couples, students, and those who move round the country or change their jobs, the right to rent. Is it any wonder that for many years in Labour-controlled local authorities the public have been saying, with monotonous regularity, that politicians are all the same? Is it any wonder thtat they say "Ah, typical politicians—they promise you the earth at election time, but once in power they forget about you."
This Government are not in the promise-breaking business. They have no intention of reneging on this commitment or on any other commitment in their manifesto. We promised to extend home ownership; we promised to introduce a tenants' charter; we promised to


introduce a law to increase the supply of private rented accommodation. We must and we will fulfil those promises, and do it at an early stage.
The Opposition should drop their mongrel dogmatic attitude and face the simple fact that, whether they like it or not, the majority of council tenants actually want to own their own homes. Also, people who want to rent houses, bungalows, or flats, and they do not mind whether they are privately owned or council owned as long as they can, at a stroke of a pen or at the fall of a guillotine, be taken off the depressing and deplorably long council house waiting queues.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that particularly in rural areas there is no hope for people to rent homes unless already empty houses come on to the housing market? That will not happen as long as farmers, in particular, are afraid that they cannot reclaim those homes for their own farming purposes. Will he not agree that shorthold is essential for rural constituencies if the people are to be housed? It is the tenants who need this help.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend I shall touch briefly on the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 in a moment—I am sure that he will have greater knowledge of that than I do.
Now is the hour for us to act. Our constituents care very little for parliamentary procedure. The public cannot comprehend why a Bill that was given such a convincing and overwhelming majority on Second Reading on 15 January must still be the cause of many gallons of parliamentary midnight oil-burning all over again, while we hassle and argue about the dots and commas of the right to buy and the right to rent. Not without reason, the public cannot understand why it has taken not only 37 sittings and 110 hours—many of which would be called unsocial—to perform the simple act of delivering the key of a council house or a shorthold tenancy agreement.
Prior to the Second Reading the Government, to their credit, embarked on a considerable policy of consultation. They produced four or five consultation docu-

ments, over a period of four or five months. They consulted the local authorities, local authority associations, housing action groups and professional bodies. All these submissions were taken into account when the Bill was drafted. It was open democracy. Hundreds of thousands of electors who voted for the right to buy their own council houses on 3 May last year will remember the delaying tactics of the Opposition tonight when they record their votes in the local government elections on 1 May.
It is not only Conservative-controlled local authorities and Conservative-controlled constituencies that concern us here. We should be looking after the interests of the silent majority who live in rented council accommodation in Labour controlled boroughs and who wanted the right to buy as far back as 1974. This election commitment was embodied in our manifesto of October 1974. The community simply will not tolerate any longer the attitude of Labour-controlled councils which, for narrow partisan reasons, stand in the way of their tenants becoming home owners. The people ask, with good reason, why a manifesto commitment has already taken 12 months to come to pass.
Electors at large probably will not remember 20 July 1976. Because of the mistaken benevolence of the electors of Bolton, East at the time, I have no firsthand memory of that night, but on that date, at a very late hour, the Government of the day guillotined not one, not two, but five Bills, one of which was a major housing Bill. That was the Bill to which I referred earlier, which is now the Rent (Agriculture) Act. Where was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) that night? Where was the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)? They were both in the "Aye" Lobby—and that is where they should be tonight on behalf of their electors and constituents.
Now is the day, and now is the hour, The time has come for the Opposition to show that they really believe in home ownership and that they want council tenants to have the right to own their own homes. Now is the time for the Opposition to show that they believe that shorthold tenancies could be given a chance to succeed. Now is the


time for them to show that they really want homelessness reduced and housing waiting lists cut.
I have no doubt that all hon. Members receive letters from their constituents on this matter. I received one dated 14 June last year from my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. J. Lodge, of 14 Forge Lane, Little Aston, who wrote:
Dear Mr. Heddle, we never voted Conservative before, but we did this time because we want to buy our bungalow. We have been tenants of the Lichfield District Council all our married lives, so please can you help us by explaining the procedure, because although we are now in our late 50s, we do not want to go on paying rent for the rest of our lives, with nothing to show for it in the end".
There are thousands upon thousands like Mr. and Mrs. Lodge.
There are many landlords—private landlords, charities and trusts, all respectable bodies—waiting to provide short-term rented accommodation for those wishing to have the right to rent. I believe that it is up to us to provide them with that opportunity. It is up to the Opposition, too, to stand by the words embodied in their Green Paper of June 1977, when they said of private rented accommodation:
If the decline continued unabated and no action were taken to compensate for the loss of accommodation from the sector, many people—particularly new or mobile households—might not be able to find the housing they need…this is already beginning to happen in a number of areas. To guard against this, we need to consider what action can be taken to stimulate the supply of lettings within the private sector, and what can be done to provide accommodation in the public sector".
The answer lies in the Division Lobbies tonight. By providing shortholds in the private sector and by allowing sales of council houses in the public sector to release cash for homes for those genuinely in need of accommodation in the public sector, that goal can be achieved. If there is a will, there is a way, and I suggest that the way must be to impose the guillotine in order to put the will and ambitions of the people on their doorsteps tonight.

Mr. David Alton: I begin this evening by registering the strongest possible protest that the Liberal Party was excluded from the Committee dealing with this Bill. Inevitably, that has meant that the opinions

of 4 million people who voted for my party at the last general election were not heard in Committee. Therefore, I am even more concerned about the move to guillotine the Bill than many other Opposition Members.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the hon. Member aware that liberal opinion on the Conservative Beck Benches was also excluded from the Committee?

Mr. Alton: I am well aware of that point and I shall come to it later. I began by making that protest, but I continue by sharing the protest already made by Members of the Labour Opposition about the way in which the Government are attempting to guillotine the Bill at this stage.
There are far more important issues in the Bill than the sale of council properties, and many of these are being camouflaged and hidden from the public in an attempt to pass, by sleight of hand a Bill that will have profound implications for the way in which our housing services are administered throughout the country. There is the whole question of local autonomy, which is particularly significant in this Bill. The rights of tenants are also very important. The Bill ignores and camouflages many of these areas.
For instance, figures issued by the Department of the Environment last month indicated that the number of new council houses started in January was probably lower than at any time since the Second World War, yet there are still more than 1 million people living in houses without inside sanitation, and there are still thousands on council waiting lists. The Government talk as though the sale of council houses will solve all those problems or make them go away overnight.
Many important issues remain undebated. The Government will introduce a stream of amendments which will be read out and put to the vote without discussion. The only amendments by Labour or Liberal Members, or by the few enlightened Conservative Members who may protest at some of the actions that the Government are taking, which will put to the vote are those that will have been fortunate enough to be the subject of a limited debate. That is surely a negation of democracy.
The Secretary of State talked about his manifesto commitments as though they were his exclusive right. At the general election his party polled 33 per cent. of the vote. That was slightly better than the 29 per cent. polled by the previous Government, but it is representative of only one-third of the British people and it is arrogant to assume that the Government's mandate represents a vast number of electors.
Every local councillor elected to every council taking decisions on the sale of council houses also has a mandate, has been elected, and has the right to say whether council houses should be sold. The Secretary of State is riding roughshod over elementary democracy in denying those locally elected representatives the opportunity to put their point of view and to take decisions about areas that they know a great deal more about than does the Secretary of State.
Housing is essentially a local service, and one man's meat can be another man's poison. What is right for some inner cities may be wrong for others; what is right for some rural areas may be wrong for others; what is right in some urban areas is often wrong in rural areas. There has been a deliberate attempt by those debating the Bill to try to ignore the differences between areas.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill would revive the private rented sector. I believe that it ensures that the safeguards that have been built up for many private tenants over the years will be removed and there will again be unfettered Rachmanism in our towns and cities. I am sure that many people, having had their security removed, will be worried about what is to happen to them, their families and their homes.
The Government are adopting double standards. Why does the Secretary of State not give those in the private sector the same rights that he is giving public sector tenants? Local authorities should be able, dependent on local circumstances, to decide whether private tenants should also have a right to buy.
I can think of many examples in my own city of Liverpool where there are thousands of people living in squalid conditions. Many live in the private sector. Indeed, 30 per cent. of tenanted properties in Liverpool are in the private

sector, compared with the national figure of 13 per cent.
Many private landlords have refused to provide even basic amenities such as an inside toilet and bathroom. How dearly many of those private tenants would like the chance to buy their homes, to get improvement grants and to exercise some home help. But the Secretary of State's double standards do not give those in the private sector the opportunity to get what he says those in the public sector should have. It is all very well to talk about housing need, but the money supply for housing is being cut back savagely, and by ignoring that the Secretary of State is covering up and camouflaging the basic problem confronting local authorities.
The Labour-controlled local authority in Liverpool decided two weeks ago to end improvement grants for those in the private sector and not to provide any more mortgages. The council took that decision because it believed that there should be no redundancies in its works department. My Liberal colleagues on the council said that that was a doctrinaire and wrong decision. We believe that some compromise should have been arrived at, but because the money supply to local authorities has been reduced they are being left with that sort of unpalatable choice.
The Liverpool authority had to decide whether to put more people on the dole, in a city where there is already 12 per cent. unemployment, or to end improvement grants in the private sector—which will also have implications for employment in the construction industry.
The Secretary of State said that if he were in opposition he would be opposing the guillotine motion. That sums up his cynicism and disregard for the fundamental issues involved. The Secretary of State seems to have an obsession with home ownership. I believe in the extension of home ownership and I should like to see more people having the chance to own their own homes, but with mortgage rates at 15 per cent. and the Government continuing to allow the MLR to stand at 17 per cent., what chance have many people got of becoming home owners?
I see many "For Sale" notices on our homes-for-sale developments in Liverpool. I have people telling me that


they can no longer afford their mortgage repayments and asking whether I can get them into council properties Liverpool already has a vast number of people on its council house waiting list. The Government's crude obsession with the money supply does not take into account its effect on the housing market and so on.
More than 50 per cent. of British homes are already owner-occupied. That is a higher proportion than in West Germany, France, Holland or Denmark. By 1977, houses made up nearly 35 per cent. of personal wealth, compared with 19 per cent. in 1960. Massive funds have been diverted from what one might call productive investment.
In 1978, the then Government spent or remitted £.5½ billion of taxpayers' money—one-third of the yield of income tax—to distort the housing market. Yet that massive injection of funds has produced little result. The public house building programme, which is just emerging from the tower block lunacies of the 1960s, is being crippled by interest charges and the Government's cash limits. We see £1 billion being given away in mortgage relief on the top slice of personal income, so that the richest house buyers have borrowed and spent as much as they can—bidding up house prices in the process, and making it increasingly difficult for first-time house buyers.
Council house waiting lists are lengthening, estates are being increasingly vandalised and private housing is deteriorating as spiralling mortgage rates swallow up more and more of home owners' money. What does the Secretary of State do? He says that we should sell council homes—as though that will solve all those basic problems. I sometimes think that if the right hon. Gentleman had been on board the "Titanic" when it started to sink, he would have been busily rearranging the deck chairs.
Against the background of the crisis in housing, the Bill is largely irrelevant. It ignores the crazy system of housing finance. When will the Government at last announce that mortgage relief will be paid only at standard rates of tax? What hope will they give to the 1½ million still living in homes without inside sanitation?
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) tried to introduce a Bill to improve

conditions in hostels for the homeless. The needs of those people were ignored by the Government and 13 people had to die in a fire in London to force the Government to respond. But for that, they would have done nothing for those who fester in squalid lodging houses and hostels. When the Bill was first introduced, it did nothing to help. Council houses are compulsorily up for grabs, but the same rights of home ownership have not been given to the 13·9 per cent. of the population who are tenants in private property.
Of course we support the extension of home ownership and believe that more people should have the chance of owning their own homes. I believe that that is a good way of ensuring liberty and equality. But the Government's policies of compulsion are hopelessly misguided. They seem to forget that where the gauleiter leads—here I use the words of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) in the debate on Second Reading—the commissar may well follow. Council house sales may well be suitable for some authorities, but in other areas it may be the worst thing that could happen to them.
In rural areas where numbers are such that small shifts in the balance between public and private housing stock can fundamentally affect the future of a community it is crass nonsense—quite absurd—to go on with the sale of council houses.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In what proportion of local authority areas does the hon. Gentleman think council houses should be sold?

Mr. Alton: It should be a matter for local authorities to decide in their own areas. They know better than anyone else what the needs are. In the city of Liverpool there are 4,000 council properties standing empty. Some of them have been empty since 1964. I am in favour of giving away some of these properties and giving people a chance to become home owners.
When I was chairman of the housing committee in Liverpool, we pushed forward with a policy to sell council dwellings. We also did something else, to which I shall return in a few moments. But what is right in Liverpool is not right in a seaside town, for example.


There, houses may well be sold to people who become simply holiday home owners. We can see the results of people buying up second, holiday homes in the rural areas of Wales. What will happen if council houses are sold in the rural parts of Wales? What will happen if people can become home owners there while those living in parts of Wales do not have the chance to go on to the council house waiting list and obtain council properties.
It would have been far better if the Government had done more to pioneer homes-for-sale developments, giving people the chance to buy houses built on sites in partnership with private enterprise. In the city of Liverpool we pioneered such a scheme, and about 3,000 houses have now been built and sold or are in the pipeline. People have been given incentives, such as the meeting of solicitors' and removal fees, and have thus been given a chance to obtain a stake in the community through home ownership.
First priority has been given to existing council tenants. Every time a council tenant moves out of a council dwelling into a house built for sale on a low-cost site in the inner city, not only is a socially desirable objective achieved, in providing more home ownership in the inner city, but council accommodation is freed for people in need.
It is nonsense for the Government to assume that everybody can afford to buy his own home. The unemployed cannot afford to do so, and people living in miserable conditions cannot always afford it. Despite the Conservative mentality that everyone should have to buy his own home, some people do not want to, and they should not he forced to.
The Bill does not go anything like far enough on tenants' control. People should be given genuine control. It is financially absurd that, for instance, the unit cost of fitting a washer on a tap has now reached the extortionate amount of £7 or £8 every time a man from a corporation works department does the job. It happens because people have been encouraged to do too little for themselves. That is why the Bill should have included a statutory requirement for local authorities to allow tenants to establish housing co-operatives if they wish.

People who have day-to-day control over their estates are far more likely to keep them in good order, and it is far less expensive for the taxpayer. People should be given incentives. If necessary, they should be given rent reductions to set up their own tenants' co-operatives.
Finally, for private tenants, the Government propose nothing but increased insecurity. I introduced, simultaneously with the Government's Bill, my own Rights of Private Tenants Bill to ensure proper standards of sanitation in the private sector and to give tenants the right, where landlords refused to do basic improvement work, to buy their homes.
I have always believed in home ownership. The Government instead propose benefits that will benefit only the few, with possibly increased distortion of housing finance. Waiting lists will not be cut, nor will bad housing go away. For most people there will be no improvement at all, but rather less hope of decent housing in a climate of public spending cuts and decay.

Mr. W. Benyon: I rise with some diffidence after being described by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) as a leading Conservative. If that is not the kiss of death, I do not know what is.
This debate is a charade. Once again we face a timetable motion on a major Bill. Any computer that was reasonably programmed could have produced this debate quite happily. One would have only to press the buttons marked "Guillotine" and "Hattersley" to get exactly the same speech out of the machine. I suppose that the same applies to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I find myself in a curious position. I have always taken the view that all major Bills should be timetabled after the Second Reading, on a motion from a Select Committee of the House. I still hold strongly to that view, but, conversely, I do not wish to see this Bill on the statute book. Therefore, I shall not support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
I opposed the Bill on Second Reading principally because it took away an effective and democratic power from


local authorities and put it in the hands of the Secretary of State. I regard that as a dangerous and retrograde step for the Conservative Party to take. I still hold firmly to that view, but since Second Reading other factors have entered into the calculation. In particular, the Government spending plans with regard to housing have now become much clearer.
I fully support the economic policy being carried out by the Government. I have no quarrel whatever with the action that has been taken and is being taken to curtail and control Government expenditure. But I should like to examine what will happen in housing over the next two or three years.
First, it is true that local authority building for rent will be substantially curtailed, if not stopped altogether. Likewise—and this is the part that I find most worrying—the purchase and rehabilitation by local authorities of sub-standard housing for renovation and reletting will practically come to an end.
In the private sector, housing for rent will show no increase. In fact, it is more likely to show a decrease because of the Labour Party's opposition to my right hon. Friend's shorthold proposals. I have always said that the Shadow Minister is the only person who could provide another 1 million units of accommodation overnight. Until that happens there is no joy to be found in the form of extra accommodation for rent in the private sector.
Housing for sale is governed principally by the level of salaries. My estimate, in which I am supported by the building societies, is that the best that we can hope for is a continuation of the present situation or a modest rise in numbers of new mortgagees. In those circumstances, pressure on the local authority sector is bound to intensify.
On top of this, the rate of household formation will show a considerable increase over the next few years. The demographic bulge is leaving the schools and going into work. Therefore, there will be far more people looking for houses in the next few years than there were previously. In addition, there are a number of other social matters the implications of which are not generally realised, except by those who really

study them. One is divorce. There are more than 140,000 divorces every year. If only 50 per cent. of those who are divorced find other partners, over a year another 70,000 applicants are added to the housing lists.
All this will exacerbate the problem over the next two or three years. If a totally unbiased expert with no preconceived political views—a sort of housing archangel—were asked to examine the problem, he would surely say that he must concentrate on the voids in the local authority estates above everything else. First, he would say that he must concentrate what building was available on housing for the elderly, whose numbers will rise continually over the next decade or so. Secondly, he would surely encourage those in council houses who could afford to do so to seek accommodation in the private sector. Unpalatable though it may be to my hon. Friends, it is exactly those people who will be encouraged to purchase their local authority houses and not move to owner-occupied accommodation elsewhere.
The mantle of Cassandra does not rest happily on my shoulders, but I see widespread distress and difficulty ahead, and certainly in my constituency, which is one of the better housed in the country. Over the past five or 10 years we have built more houses than any other area in the country, but even in my area the position is changing rapidly for the worse.
I have two questions for my right hon. and hon. Friends. First, has that aspect been properly considered?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a debate on the timetable motion and not the Bill in general.

Mr. Benyon: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the debate has ranged widely.
I hope that my question can be dealt with before the Bill comes to its conclusion as a result of this motion.
During the remaining stages of the Bill it should be possible. while passing it as an enabling Bill, to delay its introduction until this period of extreme but necessary financial stringency has passed.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I oppose the guillotine motion. Many issues remain to be dealt with.
I thought that at any minute the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) would be fighting us on the beaches. I tell him that the privately rented sector declined in the four years following the passage of the 1957 Act at twice the rate that it declined after the passage of the 1954 Act. When security of tenure and rent control restrictions were lifted, the privately rented sector declined more quickly than when controls existed. That will happen again with the short-hold provisions.
If the guillotine motion is accepted, we shall not debate the right to buy for tenants in old persons' bungalows. It was the worst example for the hon. Member for Tamworth and Lichfield to mention. The Bill will give the right to three of the tenants' relatives to join with the tenant to get a mortgage and to buy the property. I do not suggest that many old people will want to buy their bungalows, but three relatives may wish to get together with an elderly tenant to do so. When he dies, that bungalow will therefore not be available for other old people to transfer from under-occupied three-bedroomed accommodation.
The Conservative local authority in Wirral has already announced that it will not be able to build the elderly people's bungalows proposed because of Government cuts in the housing investment programme. Under this Bill, that authority will be forced, against its will, to sell the old people's bungalows that it already has. Elderly people will remain imprisoned in 12-storey flats or will under-occupy three-bedroomed council houses. They will not have the opportunity to transfer to the bungalows of which they have long dreamt.
Another issue yet to be resolved is short-life accommodation and licences. The Bill will give Security of tenure to tenants of all public housing. Organisations such as the Peabody Trust have begun to evict tenants who are on licence. They fear that granting security to short-life tenants will mean that those on licence will not vacate properties when they are needed for planned modernisation programmes.
I agree with the Minister for Housing and Construction that the Peabody Trust is behaving like a villain in a Victorian melodrama in dealing with its tenants, and that perhaps it should reconsider its action. The Minister has tabled an amendment to try to alleviate the problem for future short-life housing schemes. However, the amendment does not go far enough, and we shall not have the opportunity to debate the issue if the guillotine motion is passed. Thousands of houses with short but useful lives will remain empty.
I have tabled two new clauses. The first would place on local authorities the duty to consider short-life housing schemes to bring into use empty houses in the public sector. The second would prevent local authorities pre-empting public inquiries. It would outlaw prior demolition of properties that were the subject of a public inquiry. These are important issues, which will help to get houses into use and prevent waste of publicly owned property. I urge the Government to allow time to debate these important matters.
The Secretary of State tells us that he has a mandate for the legislation and that is therefore right to guillotine it. He does not have a mandate for the clause to increase local authority mortgage lending rates. He did not tell the electorate that the Government would make local authorities charge higher mortgage rates.
In the consultative documents issued by the Department of the Environment, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he was prepared to legislate on distraint. He probably had a mandate to alter distraint procedures so that, without recourse to the courts, local authorities could not use them against people owing rent. However, that proposal has been dropped from the legislation. That should be dealt with in debate.
Conservative Members claim that they believe in mobility and that that is a reason to force councils to sell council houses. However, they have dropped our proposals to lift residential restrictions for those on council house waiting lists. The legislation on the tenants' charter included in the Scottish Housing Bill, lifting residential qualifications and allowing single people access by right to


council house waiting lists, is not included.
Why should applicants on local authority waiting lists have access to their files when tenants do not? Why are the Government reluctant to allow tenants that access? The whole issue of freedom of information will not be debated adequately if this motion goes through.
A new subsidy system is being introduced for council houses. Because of the Government's insistence, that matter was debated at 3.30 or 4 am. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), on the Feast of the Passover, was forced to eat bacon sandwiches. It was not a serious debate, because of the lateness of the hour. That is intolerable. We need a proper debate. The subsidy system will rob local authorities of money that they need to maintain a house building programme and keep down rents. The system will be based on the discretion of the Secretary of State about what rent levels should be.
The right hon. Gentleman described the legislation as a social revolution. The Under-Secretary of State, in opposing amendments moved by Labour Members, said:
it is no part of the philosophy of this Bill to take a lead on an issue of social policy. We are dealing with housing policy."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 28 February 1980, c. 681.]
There is a conflict there between the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary. That needs debating, and it will not be debated if the guillotine motion is agreed to.
I appeal to the dry hearts on the Government Benches to vote with us to stop what is a social revolution, a revolution that for the first time in history is switching provision of housing from State provision to dependence upon private landlords—and private Rachmanism at that.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This has not been just another guillotine debate—a debate in which the Government move the motion with ritual complaints about Opposition obstruction and the Opposition respond with ritual complaints against the Government for stifling freedom of debate.
From the outset, the Opposition have recognised and accepted the right of

the Government to secure this legislation—and not only the Government's right but the Government's power, through their large majority, to enforce that right. We deplore many parts of the Bill and have contested those clauses vigorously. We shall continue to do so. But we accept that the Government have not only a majority but a mandate for some parts of the Bill.
The Government's right to achieve the passage of the Bill, and their power to secure its passage have never been at issue. What we as an Opposition have sought is that this legislation shall be debated properly—not exhaustively, not protractedly, but with a care appropriate to the content of the measure.
As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, this is a multiple measure. It begins with chapter 1, the compulsory sale of council houses. That alone is 26 clauses—longer by itself than many complete Bills that have been before the House this Session. It continues with what is claimed to be a tenants' charter—a diluted version of the charter in the Labour Government's Bill that fell with the general election last year, but welcome as far as it goes. That is another 23 clauses.
After this come the clauses on shorthold—gravely damaging, in our view, to the rights of private tenants. There are further clauses on private tenancies, on repairs and improvements, on housing subsidies—a major and controversial recasting of the subsidy system—on housing associations, on service charges and on leasehold. In all, there are 129 clauses and 20 huge schedules—a total of 142 pages. If the Government want Bills to get through by a certain date it is their duty to put before the House Bills of dimensions that can properly be got through by a certain date.
That was only how the Bill began its life; along the way it has swollen into a monstrous growth, like some legislative creature from the black lagoon. The Government, understandably dissatisfied with their original handiwork, have been rewriting the Bill as it goes along. So far in Committee the Government have tabled 137 amendments, together with six new clauses and one new schedule.
Faced with this almost unmanageable measure, the Opposition decided that we


would contest it vigorously by debate and vote but would not seek to obstruct its passage. Up to the time of the tabling of the guillotine motion we had tabled an average of only two amendments per clause or Schedule.
We neither debated nor opposed the original sittings motion. When, after only two weeks, the Government decided to move to afternoon sittings, we again neither debated the sittings motion nor voted against it, and the Bill made steady progress. Indeed, our very sense of responsibility was used against us. Along the Committee Corridor a parallel though much shorter Scottish housing Bill was being discussed in Committee. The Minister in charge, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, moved a sittings motion to extend that Committee's sittings. He said:
it might be of interest to the Committee to know that Mille we in this Committee are still at the very beginning of clause 1 after six sittings, the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill, a very similar measure, is at present on clause 16. It may also be of interest to Opposition Members to know that when a sittings motion in identical terms to the one that I am presently moving, was considered in that Committee, the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Opposition on that Committee stated: "The Opposition will not appose this motion and we shall take a few minutes only to discuss it because we want to get on with the Bill'.
The Under Secretary of State for Scotland added:
I hope that the Opposition representative on this Committee will take a similar very constructive attitude".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 19 February 1980; c. 342.]
I am not concerned with that hon. Gentleman's immature attempt to make mischief between my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Committee dealing with the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill and my colleagues on the Committee considering the Housing Bill. Ignominious failure can be the only outcome of any attempt to create disharmony between members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. On each side of the border we stand shoulder to shoulder. What is significant is that a junior Minister was able to feel justified in drawing attention to the rapid progress that we were making, and to what he rightly called our "very constructive attitude".
If the Minister thought that reaching clause 16 after eight sittings was speedy, he had not seen anything yet. Before long we began to notch up an average of one clause every hour. At the time when the guillotine motion was announced, we had reached clause 93—not bad progress in 34 sittings. After 37 sittings, we are now considering clause 106. This is no thanks to the Government.
At an early stage in Committee we asked the Minister to give us some idea of the timetable that he planned for his Bill. He was unable to do so. So, in the absence of any Government timetable, the Opposition set themselves a timetable. We informed the Government of it regularly and we kept to it meticulously. Our only stipulation was that the Committee should sit at civilised hours so that proper consideration could be given to the Bill's important and complicated provisions, which affect perhaps 20 million people.
All this was brought to a halt by the Government a week before the Easter Recess. On Tuesday 25 March, the Minister, with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington), met my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) and me, and told us that the Government wanted the Bill out of Committee by Thursday 24 April.
At that point we had reached clause 75. The Government wanted us to complete 54 further clauses and 20 schedules—93 pages—not to mention all the additional Government amendments and new clauses and schedules, in 15 sittings. We told them that the offer was an insult, and we rejected it. That was the only formal discussion on the subject that the Government ever had with us.
There was further brief informal contact between the Opposition Whip and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West followed by a brief conversation in a corridor between the Minister and me, in which he laid down unilaterally a time limit, saying that the Bill must be finished at the latest by 1 May. We had offered alternative dates later in May but the Government refused even to discuss them. We were given the choice of finishing voluntarily on 1 May or being guillotined on 1 May. That, no doubt, is what


Professor Milton Friedman means by being free to choose.
That was what the Leader of the House described as negotiations between the usual channels. It was a dishonest claim. There were no negotiations. There was an offensive ultimatum, which we rejected. Yet it would have been perfectly possible to work out a timetable that gave the Government their Bill while at the same time providing satisfactory time for proper debate.
Why was this not achieved? First, it was because of the attitude of the Minister. The Minister is an amiable man, and I am perfectly certain that he is kind to animals and small children, that he helps old ladies to cross the road, whether they want across or not, and that he rarely, if ever, beats his wife. He also has a considerable knowledge of the Bill. Indeed, it can be said confidently that between them the Minister for Housing and the Secretary of State for the Environment share a thorough understanding of the measure.
The Minister understands about 120 of the clauses and the Secretary of State, with suitable guidance, can find his way through the remaining nine. However, the Minister has shown none of the flexibility that can help even the most controversial Bill through Committee. He never began to negotiate at a time when negotiation could have made the guillotine motion unnecessary, even by the Government's criteria. Even when we asked for such a simple thing as notes to help us through the technical clauses, he refused.
Why have the Government decided to guillotine a Bill the Committee on which had reached clause 93 by the time that it was announced? First, they have guillotined the Bill because the Leader of the House is of unprecedented incompetence. He has so botched his legislative programme as to produce an unparalleled snarl-up of Bills, even though the Session is six months longer than normal. The second reason for the guillotine is that each year the Secretary of State needs a new stimulus to goad the ladies of the Tory Party conference to their Bacchic frenzy—a frenzy that generates the adrenalin needed to get him through another humdrum year of parliamentary drudgery—not that he bothers with much of that.
This year we can anticipate the feast of oratory that the right hon. Member is preparing for the Heseltine groupies at Brighton. The Secretary of State will raise aloft his brand new Housing Act and declaim "My housing policy is in ruins. Private and council rents are soaring to astronomic levels. Mortgages are dearer than ever. Building societies are suffering from an unprecedented famine of funds. Even the lickspittle Greater London Council is having to stop its mortgage scheme and cut its homesteading project. Fewer new houses will be built next year than for a generation. I shall be the first Housing Minister this century to preside over an actual reduction in the number of houses to rent. But never mind all that. I have bludgeoned through Parliament this squalid and damaging Housing Act and you now have my permission to cheer."
There will follow the regulation scenes of abandon, with younger women having to be treated for hysteria, older ladies being trampled underfoot and the Prime Minister, as usual, demonstrating her cold disdain for the whole performance. That is one reason for the guillotine. The Bill must be rushed through in time for the biennial Brighton rock.
There is another reason for the guillotine. Those of us who serve on the Standing Committee found that the more the Housing Bill was debated and the more we forced the Government to disclose about it, the more damaging and dangerous it was revealed to be. The guillotine is designed to muffle the debate and hush up the damage. I have no doubt that the Government expected the Opposition to obstruct the Bill on the early clauses on council house sales so that they could introduce a guillotine much earlier than they have. But we wanted to debate as much of the Bill as possible. As a result, we have disposed completely of the Tory myth that compulsory council house sales will bring financial gain to public funds. That absurdity was touted a great deal, but now it is not mentioned.
We have brought into the open the powers that the Government are taking to force up council rents—powers that make the Housing Finance Act 1972 look like a tenants' charter. Let it be clearly understood that, from now on, all council rent increases will be the responsibility


not of the local authorities but of the Bill and this Government.
We have forced into the open the way in which the Bill wildly tilts the powers of the courts to evict against the tenant and in favour of the landlord. We have forced into the open the way in which the Bill is designed to bring about more and more frequent and higher and higher rent increases for private landlords while at the same time removing any incentive to carry out repairs and improvements.
Only yesterday we forced from the Minister the admission that the Government were deliberately rigging the interest rates of local authority mortgages in order to deter people on low incomes living in the most difficult localities from achieving home ownership. Above all, we have forced out the truth about shorthold tenancies. In the debate on Second Reading we deliberately made no commitment for the repeal of the shorthold tenancy provisions in the Bill. Instead, we decided to table amendments to secure safeguards for shorthold tenants. Many of the amendments were based word for word on the safeguards contained in the shorthold Bills introduced by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). The sponsors of those Bills included the present Minister for Housing and Construction and an Under-Secretary of State. The Government voted down each of those safeguard amendments. It is easy to see why.
During the Committee debates Ministers chortled with glee when I said that we would rather see properties empty than subject to the proposed form of shorthold tenancy, yet Ministers gave the game away when they voted against our amendment to confine shorthold tenancies to currently empty properties. They did that for two reasons. The first was that they know that hardly any shorthold tenancies come from empty properties. That is the considered view of the Small Landlords Association and even of the Prime Minister's Centre for Policy Studies, which kindly sent us its view. The centre says:
It is extremely unlikely that many lettings will result from these provisions.
It describes shorthold tenancies as "naive in the extreme."
The second reason is more menacing. The Government's real objective is not

to provide new properties for letting but to end security of tenure and rent control on all lettings by private landlords. Short-hold tenancies are the device to bring that about. There is to be power for the Secretary of State, without reference to Parliament, to end the requirement to register rents, scope for landlords to winkle genuinely protected tenants into adjacent, inadequately protected short-hold tenancies, and power for landlords, after only a year, to convert shorthold tenancies to unprotected lettings of as little as one month. The measures are the beginning of the end of security for the tenants of private landlords.
That is the legislative framework for the rebirth of Rachmanism under official Government sponsorship. It is the most retrograde step in rent legislation for 60 years. That is why the Opposition have announced their intention to repeal short-hold tenancies and to confer proper security on all tenants of private landlords. That is why the Government do not want the Bill to be debated adequately. In Committee, as we turned over the stones we found very nasty things lurking underneath. The Government know that there might be more revelations to come, so they have moved this grubby guillotine motion.
The Government may be able to stifle parliamentary debate, but they will not stifle the truth about this menacing measure. We shall tell the people the truth about the Bill, which the Government are so anxious to conceal. We shall win our own mandate to reverse the measure, which the Government are rushing through the House in such an unseemly way.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): When the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was introducing one of his various timetable motions in the last Parliament, he prefaced his remarks by saying:
I hope that the House will be spared from the Tory Opposition even the most mechanical, ritualistic noises about the motion.
He did not do much to spare the House from a certain amount of mechanical and and ritualistic noises today. The contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major),


for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) and for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), who are members of the Committee, were much closer to the realities of the Housing Bill than anything that we heard from the right hon. Member for Ardwick.
During the debate on the same guillotine motion, the right hon. Gentleman spoke with some enthusiasm on timetable motions. He said:
We are gradually learning from the Tories how to conduct Government business in an orderly fashion."—[Official Report, 22 October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 487.]
We certainly share his enthusiasm for the orderly conduct of business, and I remind the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Ardwick that they gave us plenty to learn about guillotine motions during the last Parliament. Their Government guillotined three major measures in one day. They guillotined two constitutional measures before their Committee stages had even started. We did not hear much from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook about that when he was discussing the scrutiny of this Bill.
The timetable motion for this Bill has arisen for only one reason. It was not that put forward by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook or that advanced by the right hon. Member for Ardwick. It has arisen because of our inability to agree with the Opposition an end date for the Committee stage. The date we offered, which the Opposition did not wish to discuss, was 1 May. Let me explain why that date is both eminently reasonable and absolutely necessary. I can assure the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that there is no question of our having resorted lightly to this timetable motion. There is only one way of judging whether the end date of 1 May is reasonable, and that is against the rate of progress that the Opposition have made with the Bill so far. That rate of progress has been made solely of the Opposition's own volition.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick said in Committee yesterday that he would be paying me a mixture of compliments and insults today, and he has been as good as his word. In return, I register my gratitude and appreciation to him for the assistance which he has given me in getting through this vital piece of Tory legislation. I go so far as

to say that I do not believe that any Minister piloting through a controversial Bill could have been faced by an Opposition spokesman more helpful, more responsive and more energetic in securing it than the right hon. Member for Ardwick.
Of course the right hon. Gentleman has passionately denounced virtually every clause, but his passion for denouncing each clause has been exceeded by his enthusiasm to get on to the next one. That is why, on the basis of the rate of progress we have made, we believe that the date of 1 May is entirely reasonable. We have now completed the consideration of no fewer than 105 clauses. The most controversial parts have already been dealt with. The pace has been chosen by the Opposition. Let me remind the House of the extent of progress so far. We have completed the provisions on the right to buy, the tenants' charter, shortholds, assured tenancies, controlled tenancies, resident landlords, improvement and repairs, housing subsidies, local authority mortgages and rent rebates and allowances.
Against that background, given the progress made so far, it is ludicrous for the Opposition to maintain, as they have tried to do, that the Bill should remain in Committee until Whitsun. The right hon. Member for Ardwick has shown that, unlike other Opposition Front Bench Members, he can make great progress with a Bill. We have spent a total of 110 hours on this Bill. All the clauses of substance have been dealt with. That provides perfect scope for the Bill to be completed by 1 May, which will allow for no fewer than a further 40 hours of debate. I do not think that a more reasonable proposition could be advanced. We are simply asking the Opposition to continue with the sort of progress achieved so far. Given that progress, it should be possible to finish by the date that we have proposed.
The Opposition proposal is that the Bill should stay in Committee effectively until the Whitsun Recess, and that would allow for a further 70 to 80 hours of debate. However, we have already taken 110 hours to complete 106 of a total of 129 clauses plus the new clauses and the schedules. Against the ground covered so far by the Opposition, there is no case for suggesting that the


Bill must remain in Committee until Whitsun. Not merely is our proposal of 1 May entirely reasonable; it is so necessary, and that is the essence of the case for the motion. Three weeks longer in Committee now certainly does not mean that there will be only three weeks' delay in the Bill receiving Royal Assent. If the Bill remains in Committee until Whitsun, it will almost certainly not receive Royal Assent by the Summer Recess. So far as we can see, it certainly will not receive Royal Assent until the spill-over part of the session in the autumn. The significance of this debate is that three weeks longer in Committee now will mean a delay of at least three months before the Bill can be enacted. The Bill is so important that we cannot contemplate such a delay.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend feel that the Opposition appreciate sufficiently the sort of pressure that is being exerted upon those Conservative Members who have the misfortune to represent boroughs where the Socialists are in local control by constituents who simply do not understand why the Bill is not already on the statute book?

Mr. Stanley: That is the essence of the case, and I shall come to it in a moment.
Delay means that, quite apart from the effect upon those who wish to buy their homes, other important provisions will be deferred. There will be delay in bringing in the much needed provisions on improvement and repair. There will certainly be delay in making available to local authorities and housing associations the Exchequer contribution that we announced yesterday for improvement for sale schemes. There will be delay in extending repair grants which will be patricularly valuable to the less well off. There will be delay in making improvement grants available for public and private sector tenants; delay in giving local authorities and the Housing Corporation the ability to help first-time buyers by guaranteeing mortgages; and delay in removing the legal impediments to shared ownership schemes, again to help first-time buyers. There will be delay in giving effect to the tenants' charter which the Opposition have

claimed they so badly want introduced. There will be delay in the provision making it easier for owner-occupiers to make more accommodation available by sub-letting. It will certainly also mean delay in introducing a shorthold scheme, no doubt a delay which the Opposition will welcome, given what they have said about it.
Of all the irresponsible undertakings that have been given by the Labour Party, there can be few more irresponsible than that given in respect of shortholds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) rightly said, this is one of the few areas where the Shadow spokesman on housing can make a difference to the amount of available rented accommodation. It is irresponsible fo the Labour Party to take up a position on shortholds before the Bill has even completed its Committee and Report stages, let alone been passed on to the statute book. Its policy has been solely to try to show before the Bill becomes law that shortholds do not work.

Mr. Straw: The Minister knows that if he had included the safeguards contained in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. RhysWilliams), the position would be different. That was exactly why my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that we would keep an open mind until the Bill went through Committee. Why have not the Government included those safeguards, when the Minister was one of the signatories to them?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is familiar with the Committee proceedings, but one of the points ignored by him and by his Front Bench colleagues is that we gave extremely detailed reasons and explanations why we felt that the shorthold could work in the way that we proposed. There are important structural differences between the conception of shorthold devised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys-Williams) and the proposals that we have brought forward. In addition, no account has been taken of the fact that we said that we were considering certain aspects of the amendments which were proposed. The attitude of the Labour Party in taking up a position on shortholds before it has


had the opportunity to see the final shape of the legislation is reprehensible.
I turn to the other aspects of the Bill. The most important and crucial of these—my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and others referred to it—is the position of those who want to buy their own homes, but who are being denied the right to do so, and who will not have that right until the Bill becomes law.
Those tenants have been waiting with increasing frustration and impatience for the Bill to be enacted so that they can buy their homes. One of the few moments of reality came from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, when he read out a letter from some constituents who had written to him on the matter. It is a real, live situation, where people are waiting for the Bill to be enacted so that they can have the opportunity to buy their homes.
The frustration of those who wish to buy but who have been prevented from doing so has been added to by the sight of many other tenants—usually in areas under Conservative councils—buying their homes.
I wish to put some perspective on the comments about sales of council houses since we took office. I shall give the House two pieces of information. First, there is no doubt that in the new towns our right to buy policy is making a material contribution to extending home ownership, and not only in the Home Counties. On the number of firm negotiations and sales, in Skelmersdale the figure has reached 450, in Northampton it is 500, in Peterborough it is 600, in Washington it is more than 200, and in Basildon it is a massive 2,250. Inquiries are still coming in. There were more than 600 inquiries last month.
The position is the same where the local authorities are selling. More than 250 authorities now doing so. In our first nine months in office, some 30,000 council tenants were able to buy their homes. They are the fortunate ones. The unfortunates are those in the predominantly Labour-controlled areas where the councils are still refusing to sell, despite the fact that the House has given the Bill a Second Reading and that the Opposition themselves have said on more than one occasion that it is

only a matter of time before the Bill becomes law.
There are nearly 2 million tenants in the areas where councils are refusing to sell. It is principally for those 2 million tenants that this motion is so necessary, but not merely for them, because there are others, such as the tenants of housing associations, and the 40,000 co-owners, who will have the opportunity to buy. As the right hon. Member for Ardwick is a co-owner, no doubt he will see fit to exercise his opportunity as a result of this important piece of legislation.
The main issue is that of the 2 million council tenants. They have seen the prices of their houses and flats rising month by month. By not selling under the discounts that we introduced last May. Labour councils have already cost each of their tenants who want to buy hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, by telling Labour councils not to sell council houses before the Bill is enacted, has gone out of his way to ensure that tenants will pay even more for their homes.
Labour councils have already cost these tenants far too much. Now the Opposition are proposing to add to the delay still further by seeking to ensure that the Bill is not enacted until well after the Summer Recess. The Opposition's proposal was that the Bill should remain in Committee until 22 May. The significance of that is that the Bill would not have received Royal Assent until early November. As a result of the necessary eight-week delay between enactment and commencement, that means that the right to buy would not commence until January 1981. We are not prepared to wait until January 1981, and neither are hundreds and thousands of tenants prepared to wait until that time.
We do not believe that this is the time for delay. It is time to press on. We have put a reasonable proposition to the Opposition. I hope that the House will agree to the motion.

Mr. John Sever: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that I am in order in speaking at this time. I wish to refer to several of the comments made by the Minister. Will he explain to me why he thinks that we should proceed with the


timetable motion this evening on the basis of his arguments? To say the least, his arguments were threadbare. There are still a large number of schedules, 20 or more, with new schedules being proposed almost daily by Conservative Members and others. There are still some 20 new clauses to be discussed.
If the amendments that have not yet seen the light of day, the clauses that have not yet been discussed, and the stones to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) referred earlier have not yet been turned over, how is it that the Minister believes that the Government can come forward legitimately and reasonably with a proposition that the

Division No. 255]
AYES
[7.16 pm


Adley, Robert
Cope, John
Hawkins, Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Cormack, Patrick
Hawksley, Warren


Alexander, Richard
Corrie, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Alison, Michael
Costain, A. P.
Heddle, John


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount
Henderson, Barry


Arnold, Tom
Critchley, Julian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dickens, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Dorrell, Stephen
Hill, James


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dover, Denshore
Hooson, Tom


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hordern, Peter


Banks, Robert
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Durant, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bendall, Vivian
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Best, Keith
Eggar, Timothy
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Emery, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jesse, Toby


Blackburn, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fell, Anthony
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Kimball, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brinton, Tim
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
Knox, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lamont, Norman


Brotherton, Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lang, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Latham, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lawson, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lee, John


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Budgen, Nick
Gorst, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gow, Ian
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Burden, F. A.
Gower, Sir Raymond
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butcher, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Loveridge, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Gray, Hamish
Luce, Richard


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Greenway, Harry
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Grieve, Percy
McCrindle, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Channon, Paul
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, John Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
McQuarrie, Albert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madel, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Major, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hannam, John
Marland, Paul


Cockeram, Eric
Haselhurst, Alan
Marlow, Tony


Colvin, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Committee stage should be concluded?

It appears to me that the Committee could justifiably argue, and has tried to argue through the personage of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick, that far more time should be devoted not only to those clauses, schedules, new clauses and amendments that are outstanding, but also to all the clauses that have hitherto been discussed. For example—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 238.

Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Mather, Carol
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stokes, John


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Prior, Rt Hon James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawby, Ray
Proctor, K. Harvey
Tapsell, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rathbone, Tim
Tebblt, Norman


Mellor, David
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Donald


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Monro, Hector
Rossi, Hugh
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Moore, John
Royle, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mudd, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Waddington, David


Murphy, Christopher
Scott, Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Myles, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neale, Gerrard
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Needham, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Nelson, Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)
Waller, Gary




Walters Dennis


Neubert, Michael
Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Nott, Rt Hon John
Silvester, Fred
Warren Kenneth


Onslow, Cranley
Sims, Roger
Watson, John


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Skeet, T. H. H.



Page John(Harrow West)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Wells, John (Maidstone)




Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Speller, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Parris, Matthew
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wickenden, Keith


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Patten, John (Oxford)
Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Squire, Robin
Winterton, Nicholas


Pawsey, James
Stainton, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Percival, Sir Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanley, John



Pink, R. Bonner
Steen, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pollock, Alexander
Stevens, Martin
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Porter, George
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Foster, Derek


Adams, Allen
Crowther, J. S.
Foulkes, George


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
George, Bruce


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Davidson, Arthur
Ginsburg, David


Bagier. Gordon A. T.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Golding, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry


Berth, A. J.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Graham, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bradford, Rev R.
Dixon, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Bradley, Tom
Dobson, Frank
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dormand, Jack
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Douglas, Dick
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Ron(Edinburgh, Leith)
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Eastham, Ken
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Homewood, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hooley, Frank


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Horam, John


Carmichael, Neil
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Huckfield, Les


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed


Cartwright, John
Ewing, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Faulds, Andrew
Janner, Hon Greville


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Field, Frank
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cohen, Stanley
Fitt, Gerard
John, Brynmor


Coleman, Donald
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cook, Robin F.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cowans, Harry
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell

Kilfedder, James A.
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Kinnock, Neil
Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Lamborn, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stewart Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Lamond, James
Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ronald
O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Palmer, Arthur
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litherland, Robert
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Tilley, John


McCusker, H.
Race, Reg
Tinn, James


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Radice, Giles
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


McKelvey, William
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkins, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Robertson, George
Wellbeloved, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Welsh, Michael


McNally, Thomas
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, J. W.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


McQuade, John
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Magee, Bryan
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Ryman, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Maxton, John
Sandelson, Neville
Winnick, David


Meacher, Michael
Sever, John
Woodall, Alec


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sheerman, Barry
Woolmer, Kenneth


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Short, Mrs Renée
Wright, Sheila


Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)



Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. George Morton and


Molyneaux, James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Mr. John Evans.


Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1 May.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 1 May may continue until 11 pm whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 2 May.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall he taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committtee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings rind proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the

Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed by the House.

(4) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committtee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private Business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in

the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to he brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being


taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Housing Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

PORT OF LONDON (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.30 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill, which essentially follows the assurances given to the Port of London Authority by the previous Government. We recognise the obligation that that has imposed upon this Government. Specific help has been promised—and some of that help has been paid over. There were then both legal and moral obligations. In other words, this was an inherited obligation and not a new path of policy.
Equally, I made clear in my statement of 7 December—and I make clear again tonight—that we are talking about a financial limit. The Bill gives effect to the strict financial limit that I have already set. At the same time, we clearly hope that it will help the PLA to continue the excellent start that it has made to restoring profitability.
Before turning to the detail, I hope the House will permit me to paint in some of the background. As the House knows, the nature of the ports industry has changed dramatically over the last 10–15 years. This is mainly due to freight-handling technology, which has meant changes from traditional labour-intensive methods to cargo handling—in other words, the container revolution.
Consequently, there has been a dramatic reduction in demand for labour in the ports. In London, for example, the number of registered dock workers has declined by over 70 per cent. since 1966—a fall from 25,000 to 6,500 in that period. I acknowledge the social and human impact that such a reduction involves, and I pay tribute, to the cooperation that was necessary to secure it. But further reductions in manpower are still needed. There has also been a movement towards bigger ships and a consequent need to move nearer to the sea.
The Port of London has been particularly affected by this change. Traffic has

moved out of the upper dock into the facilities down river at Tilbury, or to specialised river wharves, and in some cases it has left London altogether and gone to other ports. There has also been a reduction in London's share of Britain's port traffic, particularly in general cargo, which represents the major part of traffic in the upper docks. The amount of general cargo has fallen from 6 million tonnes in 1970 to about 1 million tonnes in 1979. The dramatic decline in manpower requirements of the port have made it necessary for the PLA to reduce the size of its own work force, both registered dock workers and staff.
The authority's problems have been increased by the need in some cases for it to take on surplus registered dock workers from other employers who have gone out of business. Since 1973 the PLA has had to take over almost 5.000 registered dock workers from other employers, so there is no question whatever that the cost of surplus manpower is the overriding problem facing the authority. However, it is fair and important to say that there has, in general, been excellent cooperation by the trade unions in the manpower rundown But the fact is that payroll costs account for over 70 per cent. of the authority's operating costs, and its problems have not been made any easier by the continuation of some restrictive working practices, which are inappropriate to the efficient working of a modern port.
Since 1975 the authority's financial position has deteriorated rapidly, mainly be cause of the slump in world trade and the changes in traffic which I have already mentioned. In 1976 the previous Government appointed Price Waterhouse and Company to provide an independent report on the authority's financial position and prospects, and in June 1977 they agreed to stand behind medium-term loan facilities of £15 million made available by Lazard Brothers as agent for a consortium of banks. This loan was intended to help the PLA to pay for the severance of surplus staff and to refinance certain short-term borrowings.
The PLA's financial position continued to deteriorate, however, and in July 1978 the then Secretary of State for Transport—the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers)—announced further assistance in the form of £35 million in grants


towards severance costs, and backing for a further £10 million of commercial borrowings. He also insisted that, contrary to the PLA's proposals, the Royal group of docks should be kept open. But the grant towards severance costs was made conditional on agreement with the trade unions of specific targets for manpower reductions. In October 1978 the PLA and the trade unions submitted a jointly agreed short-term trade and manpower plan covering the period May 1978 to June 1979, which provided for manpower reductions of nearly 1,500, divided about equally between registered dock workers and staff. In the event, about 1,100 severances were achieved. Under a second short-term plan submitted in June 1979, a further 1,000 severances have been achieved to date, and more are in the pipeline.
Last June, the PLA submitted to me its strategic plan for the five years from 1979 to 1983, together with a second short-term plan. The strategic plan presented two options. One was the concentration option, which would have involved concentrating the PLA's operations in reduced facilities at both the India/Millwall and Royal docks. The other was the transfer option, which would have meant transferring the operations from the Royal docks to the India/Millwall docks and Tilbury. The PLA preferred the concentration option but Price Waterhouse, which I asked to review this plan, advised that it did not appear to chart a course to viability. I thought it right to publish that report, and there are copies of it in the Library.
In reviewing policy in the light of that report it was important to take one initial decision, namely, the extent to which the Government should be involved in the management of the PLA. I came to the conclusion that we should not be involved in those management decisions. The PLA would be subject to a strict financial limit. The decisions on the options on the retention or closure of docks are and continue to be a matter essentially for the PLA board.
So the Government have agreed only to maintain the minimum level of financial assistance that is needed to continue with the most rapid possible rundown of manpower and to plan for the quickest possible return to viability at least cost to

the taxpayer. Subject to adjustments to cope with inflation and the latest forecasts, I have, therefore, set the limit of financial assistance at the level promised by the previous Government in July 1978.
I have also told the PLA that it must follow policies that will enable it to recover profitability within that limit. My belief is that problems such as those facing the PLA can become permanent if the limit of Government help is not clearly spelt out. That is why the Bill sets a strict limit on Government help.
I have every confidence that the authority is determined to achieve viability. As the House knows, it announced on 3 March that PLA general cargo handling in the India and Millwall docks would have to cease because it had concluded that it was no longer possible to pursue the concentration option. In making that decision, the main factors that the board gave were losses amounting to £4 million in the first two months of this year, including about £2 million arising from the two-week strike over pay, and the insufficient movement towards implementing the changes in working practices which have been identified as being essential to the improvement of the PLA's competitive position. The authority therefore concluded that it could not continue to operate both of the upper river dock systems and at the same time stand any chance of staying within its financial limit.
Clearly, this was a difficult decision. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the approach that I have mapped out is the correct one and that it is now imperative that the PLA and the unions continue to work together to achieve an efficient, modern and profitable port, which will play an important part in the prosperity of London and of the British ports industry.
The decision of a well-attended mass meeting in the upper docks last Wednesday to lift the blacking of vessels and cargo transferred from the India and Millwall docks should, I believe, be welcomed by the House, as it provides encouraging evidence that registered dock workers and staff in London want to make a success of this port. The authority and its customers also want to make the remaining PLA docks at Tilbury and the Royals succeed. I am sure that with


the good will of the work force these docks can be competitive.
Turning to the specific provisions of the Bill, the House will see that it provides for financial assistance for measures to restore the authority's profitability through a reduction in the number of its employees and assistance for the carrying on of the undertaking while these measures are being taken.
I should perhaps say that although the broad order of the figures that I am about to give is consistent with those in the Price Waterhouse report, there are some small differences of detail.
The first form of assistance consists of grants for severance payments, and these fall into two categories. First, clause 1(1)(a) encompasses grants paid by my Department to the PLA for severance of surplus staff. Secondly, clause 1(3) encompasses grants paid by the Department of Employment to the National Dock Labour Board in respect of registered dock workers who take voluntary severance. Payments of severance grants were made in the financial years 1978–79 and 1979–80 on the authority of the Estimates and the confirming Appropriation Acts pending this legislation. The total grant to be provided under the Bill amounts to the £35 million promised by the previous Labour Government plus an allowance of up to £5 million to take account of inflation. So far, grant of £19 million towards the cost of severance has been paid, made up of £11·4 million for registered dock workers and £7·6 million for staff.
Under clause 1(1)(b), the second form of assistance is for the carrying on of the undertaking while the measures to reduce manpower are being taken. This is provided by the two commercial loans, totalling £25 million, which again the previous Government agreed to stand behind. At present, the Government's liability under this head amounts to £23 million.
I should add that I also agreed, last year, to stand behind the PLA in negotiating the postponement of a £3 million loan repayment due in 1980 and a similar repayment due in 1981, but, as this does not increase the Government's liability, it does not count against the financial limit in the Bill. Finally, as I indicated in my statement last December, I have agreed, if necessary, to stand be-

hind the PLA's existing overdraft facility up to a total of £5 million.
Clause 1(4) provides that the aggregate of assistance given, whether in the form of grants, loans or guarantees, may not exceed £70 million, and that assistance that has already been given will count against this limit. The total assistance that I have outlined, including that already given, conies to £65 million plus an allowance of up to £5 million for inflation. Therefore, the Bill exactly provides for the financial limit that I have set and does not allow for any further increase. As I have already indicated, the £70 million limit in the Bill does not represent new money, since much of the financial help has already been given to the PLA.
Perhaps before I finish I should say a word or two about why we have not felt able, in present circumstances, to accept the proposal in the PLA's strategic plan for a capital reconstruction involving a substantial write-down of the authority's outstanding debt to the Government.
My first point is the one that I made basically in my statement last December: that the Government can see no justification for such a write-down, since it would conflict with our aim of keeping assistance from public funds to the minimum.
Secondly, as Price Waterhouse has pointed out, the case for a capital reconstruction has not yet been demonstrated. We believe that the first task is for the PLA to restructure its business so as to achieve a profitable port operation, in particular through the elimination of uneconomic working practices and surplus manpower. It has to be remembered that we are already providing substantial sums in grants to assist in this very process.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at this stage, but it may save time later. I understand why Price Waterhouse made that judgment. However, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that Price Waterhouse was sufficiently aware that the Port of London Authority was not the port in London and that that, in competition with some of its tenants, as I shall point out, placed it in a very different position in respect of capital repayments than if it had the monopoly in ports handling and cargo work throughout the Thames estuary?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that there is any question but that Price Waterhouse is as informed about the position in the Port of London as any outside body can be. The survey and report that it did for me was only one of three which have been done. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that Price Waterhouse is certainly aware of that point. However, it is a point that he will no doubt wish to develop in his own speech.
Also, on the question of capital reconstruction, I do not think that it would be right to relieve the PLA of the obligation to repay or service a large amount of its existing debt, because it would remove the incentive to continue with the remedial action already so effectively under way.
There will undoubtedly be some who will argue that it is wrong for a major port of London's importance to have to meet tests of commercial viability, on the ground that we should try at all costs to avoid any further dock closures, even though the upper docks have been losing at the rate of about £7 million a year on operating account. But, if we take an opposite view, the argument surely is that it will mean supporting the Port of London at the expense of other ports, which have to operate profitably in a competitive environment. The Government believe that the ports of this country should operate in full competition, one with another, meeting the normal tests of commercial viability of being able to cover operating costs and service capital and without making any call on public funds.

Sir Graham Page: My right hon. Friend says that the ports should act in competition with one another, and the whole gist of his speech seems to be to recognise that the Government take responsibility for redundancy payments of dock workers. Does he recognise that responsibility with regard to other ports, such as Merseyside? Once the Port of London is so subsidised, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is left to pay for redundancies out of its commercial profits.

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. There are two answers to what he said. First—and this is the basis of my speech—what we are doing in the Bill is to recognise an obligation inherited from the previous

Government. I think that Opposition Members would agree that it does not chart a new path of policy but simply recognises an obligation laid down by the previous Government. That is why I have been specific about the cash limit.
The second point, which I will develop for a moment, refers to the position of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. That company approached me last year asking for financial assistance on the same lines as the aid being given to the PLA. I told the company then that I was not prepared to make amounts available towards its severance costs but that I would continue and, indeed, increase the normal assistance by way of loans under the Harbours Act 1964 towards its capital development. This was on the understanding that the company would take remedial action to reduce costs and increase revenues.
Towards the end of last year, the company approached me again saying that it expected a trading loss in 1979 of about £2 million and was concerned about the position in 1980. So I invited the National Ports Council to carry out a rapid study of the company's forecast. This showed that there were a number of ways in which the company could improve its financial position, primarily by a faster rate of manpower rundown and some increases in traffic. The company has accepted that these improvements are feasible and has undertaken to put them into effect. It has also agreed to carry out a more far-reaching study of its business in all its aspects, with a view to drawing up a new profitability plan, again with the aid of the NPC. The results of this study should be available in the summer.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish to develop his arguments during the course of the debate, and clearly my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will wish to respond to them. What I am clear about is that it would not be right for any message or suggestion to go forward from the House that in any way talks the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company into a crisis.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The only message that I want to deliver to the Minister—it is coming from all hon. Members—is that the Bill has wide implications not only for Merseyside but for the Manchester Ship


Canal Company and every other port. The Minister has made it clear that he is aware of the implications of the Bill, which is the only point I want to put forward.

Mr. Fowler: I am aware of the implications of the Bill, but it would be wrong for me to give the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) the impression that what we are doing in dealing with an inherited obligation is to create a precedent for dealing similarly with other ports. That is a point that I have made clear in the discussions that I have had.

Mr. Anthony Steen: My right hon. Friend has said that he is concerned about meeting inherited obligations, but is he aware that there are considerable obligations under the regional aid programmes which have been cut? A further point he should be aware of is that the special development area status which has attracted a grant of 22 per cent. to Merseyside is not available to the docks which are treated as a service industry. Therefore, the docks are discriminated against from all sides and the Bill will discriminate against them even more.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Mr. Steen) is being neither fair nor accurate when talking about discrimination. Nor do I think that it is reasonable for him to press such comments at a time when the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the NPC are considering the whole position of that company. I believe that I have made my general position and the position of the Government clear on this matter, in that we are dealing with an inherited obligation. It should not be seen as a precedent. But I say to my hon. Friend sincerely that I hope that in the speech he will doubtless make he will not seek to give the impression, which I believe would be wrong, of a crisis or talk the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company into a crisis.
The Government basically believe that the ports of this country should operate in full competition with one another and meet the normal tests of commercial viability. I do not agree with suggestions that it is wrong for London and other ports to seek to operate port facilities profitably. Indeed, I put the converse

suggestion, which is that it would be unfair to other ports and British industry generally if I were to pursue any other policy. Nor am I persuaded by talk about the subsidies that are provided to certain Continental ports because they apply only to a limited range of charges and dues and not to the costs of cargo handling, which represent the major cost facing port users. I do not believe that Continental ports can be compared with ports in this country, and there is no evidence that what they do has a significant effect on the traffic handled by British ports. Those who argue for continuing subsidy for uneconomic operations perhaps have little confidence or faith in the ability of the PLA management and its work force.
The Port of London can once again return to profitable operation given the vigorous action that the PLA chairman, Victor Page, and the management have shown their intention of taking, and also given the co-operation that the work force has recently demonstrated so convincingly. At Tilbury I believe that we have one of the finest modern container ports in this country, if not in Europe. The Port of London plays an important role in the economy of this country, and it must continue to do so.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Albert Booth: In proposing the Bill, the Minister is asking the House to endorse a financial undertaking given by his predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers)—to the Port of London Authority. For that reason, it would be most improper for me to oppose the Bill. I cannot, therefore, recommend any hon. Member to vote against it. Having said that, the brief moment of consensus comes to an end.
One can see set out in the long title of the Bill a proposition which is completely untenable and shows how unrealistic the Minister's approach is to the problem of the PLA. The long title says that the Bill will provide financial assistance to the PLA to enable it to restore the profitability of its operation by reducing its labour force, and that is all. I believe that that is totally unrealistic; it carries with it the assumption that the only cause of the unprofitable


operation of the PLA is the fact that it is overmanned.
That is a gross simplification. It is unrealistic and it does not take into account a series of important factors that have led to the difficulty that is now facing the Port of London Authority. For example, it ignores the technological development that has taken place in cargo handling. That has had an immense impact on the Port of London as a major general cargo-handling port. It ignores completely the degree to which specialist cargo-handling has hit the Port of London. It ignores—the right hon. Gentleman has made this crystal clear—the competition policy which exists between ports in Britain and between United Kingdom ports and other EEC ports.
If the Minister seriously believes that the ports of other countries determine their charges on a basis that does not take into consideration how many long-term deep-sea cargoes they get compared with British cargo ports, he is flying in the face of the experience not only of those who operate the ports but of those who have made a detailed study of the issue over the past 10 years.
The Minister seems to ignore work practice, which has a great bearing on profitability. Some might say—I might join them—that the way in which the port has been managed over recent years has had a great bearing on its present difficulties. I go along with one factor that the Minister mentioned, although he appears not to want to take it fully into account—namely, the special problems which face the Port of London because of the National Dock Labour Board scheme, with the PLA being the employer of last resort. That has been a special problem for London. Also ignored is the fact that there is a world slump. All these factors must be put together to form a complex relationship which I do not claim fully to understand. However, I can assert even from my knowledge of the Port of London that all the factors that I have mentioned have a considerable bearing on the problem.
It is an utterly prejudiced and, therefore, unrealistic view to say that it is only the number employed in the Port of London that needs to be tackled and that only in that area is it proper for

the Government to step in with financial assistance. The Minister says that all that it is proper for the Government to do is to set a strict financial limit. Incidentally, it is a limit determined by his predecessor for an entirely different purpose. To say to the Port of London "That is all that you need me to do and you can now go ahead and sort out the problem in terms of profitability" is to ignore a number of important factors and some responsibilities of the House and the Government.
I shall deal first with the issue in the terms in which the Minister has posed it before I turn to what I consider to be a more realistic appraisal. I question how far the £70 million will achieve the narrow objectives which the Minister sets for the Bill. I take it from what he has said that £35 million of the £70 million was agreed in July 1978 as being available for severance as from that date. It has already been in use for almost two years. I think that the Minister said that £19 million of it had already been used. I understand that it has been used in part to support the National Dock Labour Board's registered dock workers' severance scheme. It was used in that way until February 1980, when, as a result of a special levy of about 8 per cent. on employers, the Port of London element of the scheme came into surplus. The Minister has not indicated whether he expects that any more of it will be needed in that regard—that is, whether he thinks that the levy that the employers now pay to the scheme will finance any further redundancies of registered dock workers or whether more will be required for that part of the scheme.
There are severance schemes in existence within the province of the Port of London Authority that are even more expensive to the employer than the registered dock workers' scheme. These schemes will have to be financed. For example, the NALGO-negotiated scheme produces rather better severance terms than the registered dock workers' scheme. If the sum provided in the Bill is to deal only with further severances that arise from the Port of London Authority having decided on the transfer option—namely, taking work out of the India and Millwall docks to place it in the Royal docks, and some of it at Tilbury—is it seen as being sufficient to finance all the


severance that the Minister considers necessary to enable the PLA to operate profitably again?
I understand that £25 million of the £70 million is to cover loans taken from Lazard Brothers to stand guarantee and that £n is to allow for inflation since the figures were first set. Presumably £ will be the working capital, or the extent to which the Port of London can operate an overdraft to carry on through the period in which it must operate if it is to return to viability.
Bearing in mind the losses being sustained on Port of London cargo-handling operations, I question whether the financing that I have described is realistic. In 1978 the losses were about £12 million I understand that the current losses on the two upper docks are about £9 million. Against that horrendous financial background, it is not by any means clear how the Minister contends that they are set on the road to viability.
One of the difficulties that faces us in trying to debate the issue sensibly is the way in which relevant information has been withheld from the House. The Minister received the Price Waterhouse report containing the five-year strategic plan of the Port of London Authority in September 1979. By December he had the summary, which he chose to make available to us yesterday afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that there is considerable difficulty in preparing properly for debates on this issue.

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman is talking utter rubbish. The Price Waterhouse report was not made available only yesterday. It was published in the press last week. If the right hon. Gentleman consults the press, he will find it there. At the same time, it was placed in the Library. As a courtesy, I had my office telephone his office to ensure that he had noticed its appearance. He is on a doubly dud point. There have been three Price Waterhouse reports. The only one to be published is the one that I commissioned. The two commissioned by the previous Labour Government were not published.

Mr. Booth: I apologise to the Minister and to the House for referring to yesterday when I should have referred to the report being available in the

Library last week. However, my argument is not dud. It is totally relevant. The decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton to guarantee money being available to the PLA, which led to the Minister bringing the Bill before the House, required the PLA, as a condition of receipt of the money, to accept certain options—namely, to maintain the upper docks in operation while an examination was carried out to ascertain whether it was feasible to restore their viability. The Minister has taken a different view from that of the chairman of the board, who wanted to close the docks.
The Price Waterhouse report is relevant because it gives the first indication of how far an independent accounting examination bears out the decision made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton. He decided that it was right to require the Port of London Authority to continue working the upper docks. The report provides a basis on which to judge the relevance of the Bill.
I accept that the report has been available in the Library since last week. However, we have been given precious little time to make a serious examination of the issue. If the Minister had been more forthcoming, he might have obtained a greater degree of understanding. This subject is fraught with suspicion and uncertainty. It is impossible to discuss it with those who are deeply concerned and affected by it without realising that for a number of years they have felt that either the Government or the management should give some clear indication that a massive rundown of labour would ultimately lead to a viable operation. The decision affected not only the management and unions but local authorities and everybody whose livelihood was dependent on docklands remaining viable.

Mr. Roger Moate: Is the right hon. Gentleman condemning the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) for failing to publish the previous Price Waterhouse reports?

Mr. Booth: I am not condemning or approving the non-publication of the previous reports. I would welcome more information. However, this report has a special significance that did not attach to the previous reports. A Labour Minister of Transport decided, against


the advice of the chairman of the Port of London Authority, to require—as a condition of providing the money—that the Royal docks, West India dock and Millwall dock should be maintained. The report makes a judgment on that issue that is favourable to his decision. It says that it was right to examine further whether there was a sound basis upon which to keep the docks running.
The massive rundown of labour has had an enormous impact on the thinking of those affected by the development of the Port of London Authority. I would take a longer time scale than the Minister. I do not disagree with his figures. They are relevant. However, in 1961 29,000 people were working in the docks. That figure has decreased to about 8,000. That represents a tremendous drop. Such a reduction cannot take place without major industrial disturbance. The Bill is related to a proposal that will run down the labour force still further. A severance of a further 500 is required in the transfer of work from the West India and Millwall docks to the Royals and to Tilbury. Of those, more non-registered workers will be transferred. Such a rundown within that time scale was achieved at an enormous social cost to the upper docklands area. A thriving, bustling, and vital community has become an urban desert.
I was slightly encouraged when I went there the other day and saw some signs of a return of industrial activity. However, one could not help but be terribly depressed by seeing that such a great area had had the life knocked out of it. I realise that the impact of events has gone well beyond the livelihoods of those who used to work in the docks. It has affected a great many other people in the community.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that I and many of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies have been trying to draw the attention of successive Governments to that very point. All Governments have refused to recognise it.

Mr. Booth: I fully accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and several other hon. Members who represent

London constituencies have drawn that point to the attention of previous Ministers. A distinction can be made between the previous Minister and the present one. The previous Minister said that a condition of providing any money was that an operation should be maintained. However, the Minister today has said nothing like that. He has said that the money is available on the sole condition that the labour force is run down. He has not sought any assurance that there will be any restructuring or co-operation between the Government, the Port of London Authority and local authorities in the area to ensure a viable operation.
It is cloud-cuckoo-land nonsense to say that the Port of London Authority is well on the way to achieving viability or profitability. I do not know how that is defined by accountants. However, in its five-year strategy the Port of London Authority defined "viability" in clear and straightforward terms. I would have thought that those terms would have been acceptable to the Minister. The Port of London Authority has said that the correct financial objective is to reach a point at which it can earn enough on its working assets to pay the interest charges and debts that it has to meet and to service its working capital. It is not within a mile of obtaining that objective. Nor is it likely to come within a mile if it is limited to this type of operation.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Does not my right hon. Friend find it difficult to understand the Government's posture? The Minister said—and his hon. Friends have also said from time to time—that the Government will not intervene. They assume that that has some sort of political virtue. The Minister said that we should not be involved in management decisions. However, the Government naively and glibly tried to persuade the House that they are not involved in any decisions, while providing millions of pounds to sustain management decisions. They will not provide money elsewhere on more important things. Is not that a rather odd posture?

Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has me at a loss. I can see the incongruity of the Minister's position and, at the same time, a certain strange consistency in his remarks. Together with some of his


Cabinet colleagues, the Minister has said on other issues that it is not the role of the Government to become involved in management decisions. To that extent he is consistent. However, how one can square that with bringing forward a Bill that provides £70 million for the special case of the Port of London while refusing to give money to other cases and how they can say that they are not involved in management decisions evades me. I cannot explain that away.
Closure of the docks—the Royals or the upper docks—would be a social crime in all the circumstances as we now know them. If a sensible basis for maintaining them can be properly established, because of their effect on the area in which they operate, it must be examined very carefully. The Price Waterhouse report says that it is too early to determine whether there is a totally viable basis on which the docks could operate. In fact, to that extent the report disagrees with the judgment of the previous chairman of the PLA.
I believe that the PLA has a major job to do in its co-operation with the local authorities of dockland in the redevelopment of that area. As more and more of the PLA's land becomes available because it is no longer required for dock usage, the PLA should be under an obligation to see that that land is released to other usage in a way that will ensure alternative employment and revitalisation of the dockland area.
In the five-year strategic plan of the PLA, it is made abundantly clear that there is no realistic prospect of achieving the minimum cash flow objective that I have just outlined by 1983 without some form of capital reconstruction. The Minister has not said whether he disagrees with that. He has tended to imply—quite unrealistically, in my opinion—that somehow there can be a return to a viable operation without any sort of capital reconstruction. The Minister must face the fact that there is no way that he has outlined in which the PLA could generate sufficient cash flow to pay its interest charges and meet its capital debts while maintaining the assets which it requires. This applies to the PLA's existing working assets, not to the introduction of more modern cargo-handling facilities.
The reason for this is simple. The PLA has a capital and physical structure which is far more appropriate to the Port of London at a time when London was the heart of a trading empire than it is to the Port of London as it exists today, with its different trading relationships with other ports in the United Kingdom and those in Europe. It will be necessary for the Port of London to develop much better marketing techniques and to modernise some of its cargo-handling facilities so that it can operate viably. Undoubtedly, it must achieve better working practices in certain areas of its operation before it can achieve the financial target that we have been discussing.
While the future of the docks remains in doubt and while a question mark hangs over the Royals, it will be very difficult for the PLA to build the sort of customer relationship that it must have. It must be much more difficult to persuade a shipping line to start to use the Royals if there is no evidence that there is a convincing plan ahead to return those docks to viability. Of equal, if not greater, importance is the fact that the PLA cannot reach sensible agreements with its unions on the introduction of more modern equipment unless those unions have some confidence that they are working towards a future for which there is a sound framework. They need a target that makes sense. To tell them to reach viability with no more than the provisions of the Bill is not a sensible framework on which to work.
I believe that the greatest defect in the Bill is that it fails to grasp the central issue of the problem of the London docks. It fails to provide any convincing basis for the future of the upper docks. It concentrates, as its long title makes crystal clear, on the reduction required in the labour force. It ignores all those other factors which must be tackled simultaneously with labour reduction in order to put the Port of London upper docks on a sound basis.
Therefore, I urge that during the course of our debates on the Bill we must press for further reconsideration by the Government and the Minister and for a wider and more realistic approach. They must make clear to the PLA, its employees and its customers the options that are open to them which will give to unions and management within the PLA,


and to dockland authorities, a framework on which to build a future for London dockland.

Sir Graham Page: The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has complained that the purpose of the Bill is to provide financial assistance if, and only if, redundancy payments are to be made. In other words, it is compensation, as it were, for thinning out the manpower in the Port of London. That is perfectly well explained in the first sentence of the explanatory and financial memorandum, which says:
financial assistance for measures to reduce the manpower of the Port of London Authority".
It was also well explained in the Minister's speech. I believe that that is perfectly right. The Bill should be restricted to that kind of assistance rather than try to cover the whole management and future of the PLA.

Mr. Ogden: Will the right hon. Gentleman be arguing the case for the ports on Merseyside?

Sir G. Page: If the hon. Member would wait for me to make my speech, he might find that I shall steal all his thunder in supporting the case for the Mersey docks.
Having recognised that this is the only purpose of the Bill, we must recognise that the Government have accepted a responsibility to compensate ports for the redundancy payments which they must make in order to ensure that those ports are viable—not necessarily for all redundancy payments in every industry, but certainly in this case the payments to that special kind of worker, the registered dock worker.
The Bill is very careful and deliberate in limiting the financial assistance to that subject—the reimbursement of redundancy payments. In almost every line of the Bill one reads that if there is no redundancy there is no financial assistance. Of course, it is said that this is all with a view to making a port viable. It is true also that the Minister is standing by previous loans and guarantees, but redundancy is the condition precedent to the present grant and the Bill recognises the Government's responsibility when redundancy of this sort occurs. My right

hon. Friend the Minister said in December:
The Government can only agree to maintain the minimum level of financial assistance to the authority that it will need to continue with the most rapid possible run-down of manpower".—[Official Report, 7 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 385.]
That is the purpose of the Bill, but the other arrangements relating to the PLA will stand. It will still be substantially subsidised in other ways, for example, by the refund of £35 million redundancy payments made before the end of February and by the £15 million loan in 1977–78 and another commercial loan of £10 million.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to two loans of £25 million.

Mr. Fowler: No—two loans totalling £25 million.

Sir G. Page: That is, then, a further £25 million subsidy to the PLA, together with two £3 million loans and a £5 million overdraft, all backed by the Government.
The PLA may say that it is in competition with the State-owned and subsidised ports, such as Hull and Southampton, which have a Government loan of about £57 million at the preferential rate of interest of 3·6 per cent.
The Mersey docks are not State-owned and they do not get that sort of subsidy. When they borrow money from the Government, they have to pay interest not at 3·6 per cent. but at the Treasury rate of 15 per cent.

Mr. John Prescott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is exactly the same policy as applies to the British Transport Docks Board if it borrows from the public sector?

Sir G. Page: Yes, but those docks already have capital to play with from the Government in that £57 million loan.
There is an injustice in the Bill. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has to compete against State-owned and subsidised ports and it will now have to compete against the heavily subsidised PLA.
Liverpool is the second largest port in the land. We rely on it for a considerable amount of international trade. The company employs 6,600 workers, and there


are about 10,000 employees in all in the port. In addition, the jobs of many workers on Merseyside rely on port activities.
In 1979, the company set aside £5½ million to cover the cost of redundancies and in 1978 it set aside £3 million. In those two years it had to find £8½ million, without subsidy from the Government, for redundancies.

Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense to discriminate against the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company by giving extra money to London while, on the other hand, establishing enterprise zones and urban development corporations to compensate for the injustice?

Sir G. Page: I do not want to complain about the zones and corporations coming to Merseyside. I hope that they will compensate, to some extent, for the unjust way in which the Mersey docks are being treated by the increase in competition against them caused by the subsidy provided for in the Bill.
The Mersey docks have carried out their duty to the economy, as the Government see that duty, in reducing the number of employees and making the docks as viable as possible. Compared with the Port of London, the Mersey docks have been a success—if we cut out the £8½ million that they have had to find for redundancy.
In fair competition, the Mersey docks can be successful and profitable. If they have unfair competition from subsidised State-owned and State-subsidised docks, and from the subsidised Port of London Authority, they may well suffer. If one compares the Mersey docks figures with those for the Port of London Authority, one sees that the Bill is investing in the Thames failure. I ask the Government to invest in the Merseyside success.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) has the right to comment on what he believes to be the effect of the Bill on his constituency. I do not deny that he may have a small part of a case, but I commend to him two points. First, the Port of London Authority is not the Port of London. I shall have a good deal more to say about that. Secondly,

competition among British ports is to some extent regionalised. I shall not say that there is not a degree of competition between the two ports for the Midlands traffic, but there is also competition in relation to the trade facilities and the regular shipping services that each provides The competition may be much less than the right hon. Gentleman hinted.
The first thanks of every hon. Member who wishes to take part in the debate must go to the Leader of the House for putting down a protecting motion, which allows us to have a four-hour debate if we wish. That is a graceful gesture, which gives the House a reasonable amount of time to deal with a complex matter. I intend to take perhaps an undue part of that time, because my constituency contains the whole of the Royal docks, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) is today in Zimbabwe, for obvious reasons, and I am sure that he would have wished to contribute from the Back Benches, because he represents the whole of the area in which the West India docks are situated. We have been round the closure course a number of times.
I want to be as bipartisan as I can be tonight, because the origins of the Bill were with the previous Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers). I do not want my hon. Friends to think that I am necessarily in favour of the Government's way of going about things. I am not. I hope to show that even if I accepted their criteria I do not believe that the Bill would achieve what they want to do.
The Bill explains itself in the long title:
To provide financial assistance for and in connection with measures taken by the Port of London Authority to restore the profitability of their undertaking by reducing the number of persons employed by them.
I believe that that is dangerously simplistic. I do not think that it is right for us to pass the Bill, which we must pass tonight, without some heavy qualifications. That is my first qualification.
I commend the courtesy of, and the apparently reasonable introduction by, the Minister of Transport. But the mere fact that he has permitted a Bill with a long title of that kind shows that, although he has learnt a great deal in the


past few months—all Governments, including my own, have learnt a great deal about the Port of London authority—he has not learnt enough. If I am slightly tedious, but not repetitious, tonight, it is because I want to put on record certain factors that have been ignored by Governments of all persuasions. Governments will ignore them in future at their peril. I make no apology for the length of my contribution, because the people of East London know that what happens in respect of the Bill may determine the whole future of the Port of London. The Bill may not be as good as and may be far more dangerous than the Government realise.
My second qualification is that clause 1(2) of the Bill says that, in giving assistance, the Minister may require
a grant to be repaid in specified circumstances and conditions as to the future management of the Authority's undertaking and the services and facilities to be provided by the Authority.
I cannot reconcile that with the Minister's statement that he will be taking no power to intervene in the operation of the port authority. We should examine that in Committee.
My third qualification is that the Minister believes that any port in the United Kingdom, be it Liverpool, Whitstable or Felixstowe, can operate entirely on a commercial basis, bearing in mind the effect that it has on other United Kingdom ports. If the Minister wants ports in the United Kingdom, and particularly London, to compete, they may compete themselves into oblivion with ports of the near Continent.
For those reasons, while we do not oppose the Bill, my hon. Friends and I have grave apprehensions about its effect. We fear that it will be a slipway to further reduction in the Port of London Authority's activities and consequently the activities of the Port of London, which is not the same thing. That is why we have given notice of a motion, which may not in the end be put, that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of the House.
By voting money, we shall be approving a policy. The two cannot be separated. That is the classic position in which the elected representatives of the people must challenge the Executive. The assumptions on which the Bill is

based can be properly examined only by a Select Committee.
When a Private Bill comes to the House, the long title has to be proved. I do not believe that this long title can stand up, and a Select Committee should decide that.
I shall divide the remainder of my speech into two parts. First, certain aspects of the port should be placed on record—its physical nature and importance, port organisation in London and human dimensions. I then wish to deal with administrative, management and financial factors and international competition. Those are the six parts of the main burden of my remarks.
Other than those who live and work in the area, people consistently confuse the Port of London authority and the Port of London. It is easy to do. People talk of the docks as if the docks equal the port, which is not correct.
The Port of London was there for centuries before the Port of London Authority was created by this House. The operations of the Port of London are more concerned with—and always have been—with the river than the docks. Technical and shipping trends in the past few years have intensified the superiority of the river over the docks, which were started over 180 years ago, as a result of the then monopoly of the West Indian merchants and others, as a secure and safe haven for sailing ships and to maintain easy cargo handling.
It has gone on from there. Indeed, as I have said, everyone constantly confuses the two. In terms of those for whom I am speaking, the East London community, I am not concerned, frankly, with either management or with unions within the Port of London Authority legal network. I am concerned, but not concerned tonight. My concern is with the efficiency and the health of the Port of London writ large and its effect upon East London in particular.

Mr. Moate: I am only seeking information, although I might add that the hon. Gentleman seems to be getting dangerously close to making a case for the closure of the enclosed docks. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House what proportion of the traffic is taken through


the upper docks and how much is handled in the river as a whole?

Mr. Spearing: I could quote the figures from a recent PLA report. I shall try to find them as soon as I can. But if I were to find them they would be dangerously misleading, because traffic in the river includes oil, and it is necessary to do quite a lot of calculation.
When the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to mention the GLC port, which is the upper port—the area which is popularly supposed to be at a disadvantage. About 12 million tonnes of cargo go up and down the river upstream of the GLC boundary at Crayfordness, of which about 1 million to 1½ million tonnes goes into the docks. I do not think that that necessarily represents the ratio for the whole of the port. I shall try later on to let the hon. Gentleman know the answer privately.
The point is that the upper docks could fulfil a different function from those for which they were built. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I have been coming close to making a case for their closure, but that is not so. I am saying that their capital cost, and the fact that they are there, can mean that they can be used for new functions and to under-gird what everyone wants to see—the sustenance of East London, and urban reconstruction. My doubt is whether the PLA has been sufficiently enterprising in that direction.
I should like to mention some of the physical characteristics of what are generally regarded as the upper docks, and which are said to be so small and out of date. There are no fewer than 16 miles of deep water quay in the West India and Royal docks. The entrance lock of the Royal docks is very large. The channel up to the Royal docks entrance is 47 ft. deep at high water by 600 ft. wide. It is twice as wide as the Panama Canal and much deeper. This is the case right up into Greater London. Indeed, at Tower Bridge there is a 34 ft. channel, 300 ft. wide. The idea that it is out of date, or that this great natural waterway, a great highway for London, has had it, is just not true. Many ships—not as many as we would like—are still in the river. But, of course, there has been a considerable rundown.
In the Royal docks, there is a dry dock which is no less than 750 ft. long. Unfortunately, it cannot be used. It is impossible now to get any size of ship in a dry dock repaired in London, because the economics and the labour relations of ship repair in London have had a tragic history, which I shall not repeat to the House. It was mentioned by me in some detail in the Adjournment debate on 21 December.
There is virtually no ship repair of any size at all in London, Britain's premier port. When the Thames water authority wished to get some of its sludge vessels repaired, it considered sending them to Falmouth, and may yet do so. That is the position in the United Kingdom, a maritime Power. That is the position in London, Britain's premier port.
The sort of Greek tragedy, almost, which in miniature was found inside River Thames Ship Repairers could, without too much stretch of the imagination, be found also within the Port of London. That is why I believe the debate to be so important.
I turn now from physical and background factors to the organisation of the port. I have drawn the distinction between port and river. Let us have a look at the Port of London Authority. The Port of London Authority was flung together by the House after one or perhaps two abortive Bills resulting from a Royal Commission at the turn of the century. In its wisdom, the House put together a wide-ranging organisation with a number of disparate and, to some extent, conflicting functions. It invested in the authority powers of conservation and navigation and those of a harbour authority. The basic operation would continue whether or not there were docks.
The House vested in the authority the functions of a dock company. It amalgamated all the competing dock companies which competed themselves into oblivion. It put them together in a monopoly but did not include river warehousing. The authority also had a function for cargo handling, storage and, now, groupage, which is not the same. One can own a dock but not necessarily handle a tug. The PLA is involved in cargo handling. For that, it must employ dock labour. In the Royal docks the PLA did not employ labour until recently. The work was done by labour contractors.


When hon. Members talk about dockers, they must remember that the function of the PLA as an employer of registered dock labour is of relatively recent significance. In the West India dock the PLA has handled cargo since the days of the West India Company.
In addition to those functions, the House vested in the PLA the responsibilities of a landowner. I shall not describe them as responsibilities of a land speculator, but the PLA has dealt in land in recent years. The Community Land Act was of significance. I have no doubt that the repeal of that Act will also be significant to the balance sheet and finances.
It would be feasible in abstract terms for the PLA to operate with a commercial return without operating a dock at all or, indeed, without employing registered dockers. That is because the accounts are consolidated. If the Government's criteria involve commercial viability and return on capital or cash flow and if they leave the PLA to juggle as it thinks fit—or as it must as a result of Government restraint—the capital and cash considerations might force it to take actions which it might not wish to take and which are not in the best interests of the Port of London, the United Kingdom or, indeed, British shipping. That must be borne in mind.
The capital structure for the functions that I have outlined is not suited to the present conditions. It has been said that London was well organised in 1908 when it was empired. That is correct. The Port of London's motto is "Floreat Imperii Portus"—let the imperial port flourish. If the empire goes, what happens to the port? That is almost the history of the port. It is not as simple as that, but there is much truth in it. We face a large problem. It is much bigger than the Government realise.
I turn to the human dimensions, which are considerable. There has been a great improvement in communications, understanding and dialogue in the Port of London in the last two or three years. Before the PLA went broke, it acted like the Kremlin. It was an imperial power. One can forgive it because it was vested in the dock companies, one of which went back to the East India Company. Some people say that the PLA acted in the

same way as that company, but things have changed.
I pay tribute to Sir John Cuckney, who gave out a lot of information and did his best to change things, but it is very difficult to make changes after 200 or 300 years of tradition, particularly with a middle management that has been used to an entirely different style of operation. Nevertheless, information and knowledge are very important, and while the responsible people in management and the unions may understand that things have to change, it takes a long time for that realisation to filter down the line. I am not convinced that we have allowed enough time for that to happen.
There is now a different basis for registered dock labour. At one time ships' crews handled the cargo. Then a shipping contractor came on the scene and provided auxiliary labour to take over the work of the crew. The dock company handled the work on the quay, in the sheds and through delivery to rail transport. Some of the practices built up at that time may not now be relevant, but they are regarded as bargaining counters and are guarded jealously. The PLA and the Government must take that into account.
The Minister was generous and right in his tribute to the work of the unions and their leaders. The process has been extremely complex and we must remember that registered and unregistered dock labourers are all members of unions and are organised as between the riverside and the dockside. The Minister must not forget that in many ways the PLA is providing services for its competitors. A ship goes into a dock and enjoys the convenience of security, a constant level of water and warehousing, yet an operator is providing a floating jetty or quay which can be run much more cheaply. The PLA has a difficult job in providing services for its competitors.
That brings me to the dilemma of management. I have paid tribute to what the PLA has done in terms of information and the way in which the present management is devoting all the time and effort it can to solving the problems that exist. But it would be wrong not to mention that that management never had and still does not have the confidence of many people who work in the docks and of East London's municipal leaders. One chap said to me "They are a nice lot of young


men—solicitors and accountants—but there is not a dock operator among the senior management." That may not be true, but that view is held by many people.
Confidence and good communications lie at the root of success for the Minister's plan. It is said in East London that the PLA has always wanted to close the upper docks. Some of our people say that it is suffering from the disease of Maplinitis. In order to make the port profitable they will close everything down, run the concern as a land company, and say that if it had been allowed to build at Maplin it would have been even more profitable.
There is always a degree of mistrust. The London borough councils have had to face four different plans for closure. Only recently has the port begun to be marketed as a total port. The Port Trade Development Committee was set up in 1976 under Frank Cousins, and it made a number of recommendations, some of which were followed up rather slowly. One of them, and this is a moral tale, was that inside the West India docks there should be a crane to deal with containers. It is called the Nellen container crane. I shall not deal with the problems, but the crane has been there for several months. A loan was granted by the harbour board. I believe that the crane cost more than £1 million. It has not been used.
One side blames the other, and I shall not take sides on that issue. The fact is that the West India docks, which are favoured by many of the shippers, could have been operating in a different way had that matter been smoothed out. I do not know who is to blame. It may be that no one is to blame. It may be that these communications should be considered very carefully. Certainly, management cops the blame from the community even if, after investigation, it turns out that this example of apparent deadlock cannot be faulted on either side.
Without a Select Committee, or without some investigation into the port, these problems will continue. That is why many people in East London have called for some sort of investigation into the PLA and, by that token, those who work for it—one cannot be investigated without the other—to see what can be done. In the end, it will be the community who will lose.
People may receive redundancy pay or top-hat pensions under the provisions in this Bill, but if the matter goes wrong it is the community which will have to carry the can. The community is asking for more details and an investigation.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does my hon. Friend know that it is not known whether the crane to which he referred—which has never been used and is not likely to be used—can be moved to any other part of the docks so that it could be used?

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He brings me to my next point, namely, the way in which the present proposals for transfer have been handled. Apparently the reason for transfer is to save the overhead cost of some 500 persons, many of whom are not registered port workers, so as to come within the Government cash limits. We understand that the Government wish to impose cash limits. I do not want to drag in any contentious material. However, that appears to be the reason for this change and why it has been expedited.
The management said to the unions "The ships will go to the Royals"—where there is a different working practice—"like it or lump it." I think that the reason for the meeting to which the Minister referred was that the unions felt that if they went along the road that the management have been pressing—in the sense of imposing what they regard as an unreasonable condition which leads to blacking—they would lose the lot. However, I do not know whether that is correct, as I do not speak for the unions. But, in risking that—a risk which has been partly lifted—the management were playing Russian roulette with the trade of the port.
There is nothing easier than to take a ship away from a port and not send it there again. There will be many ports around the coast that would gladly take the West India trade. Shippers like to use the West India docks because the working practices are historically superior—or so it is thought by the users—to those at the Royals. That gives rise to a certain amount of distrust.
There is another matter of distrust. People in East London say "Ah, well, they will sell it to the urban development corporation. It will be nice land


for an enterprise zone. That is what is motivating the PLA." I am not saying that that is so. All that I am saying is that that is a natural and understandable reaction. People in East London know what is happening.
I do not intend to deal with the urban development corporation or enterprise zones. In this speech, I shall assume that they are good things for East London. However, if they are good for East London—and the Minister and the Government think that they will be—would it not be a good idea to keep open the West India docks so that they can be fed by water, and the enterprises which the Government hope that the UDC and other projects may bring could be part of a port?
People in East London say "What will happen to the West India installations? What will happen to the very good Olsen terminal? What will happen to the facilities there? Will it be let to tenants?" Why not? Why cannot the West India docks be used in a constructive and positive way, not necessarily operated by the PLA but perhaps by other persons who could use it for the benefit of the port as a whole? There is the dilemma for the PLA. If it did that, it would say "Ah, well, if we do that we shall undermine the viability of Tilbury." The PLA would, therefore, have to take a very difficult decision.
I should like to put to the Government two other factors which I think will impede the success of their plan. Let us assume that all problems of confidence, management, unions and the relationships between them are solved. Let us assume that there are none of the difficulties which I have just outlined. I still do not think that the Bill will achieve its purpose, because there are the lead weights of the interest. The Minister said that the Price Waterhouse report justifies the continued trust port status. But how can he justify interest of £8 million or £9 million a year, which has to be paid whether or not the enterprise is profitable? All the other wharves on the river are operating at a surplus. But if they make a loss they do not have to pay their shareholders, whereas by statute the PLA does, because the 1908 conditions, whereby a monopoly was exchanged for an obligation to pay interest on capital, no longer exist.
The 1908 monopoly which London had by virtue of its physical building, which to some extent is now outdated, has disappeared. Therefore, can one apply the same financial principle? I suggest that one cannot. Even if one gets rid of that, one is left with the final factor about which I believe there will be considerable problems. That relates to competition, and not just with other ports which can act as ferry terminals. Techniques have changed, and, because of dredging, lighting and tugs, London is at a physical disadvantage.
However, the major point relates to what is known in the trade as the Touche Ross report, which was published by the National Ports Council some years ago. It showed that Continental ports, by virtue of their municipal or national management, grew up in a quite different tradition from the Port of London. Indeed, they were created and sustained by the nations and towns of which they were part in order to compete with London. Many of the developments at Dunkirk, Antwerp and Rotterdam were pursued by the municipalities in order to compete with London. They have a quite different financial structure.
I shall not go into the details, but the Minister will know that the Touche Ross report calculated that port dues in London could be dramatically reduced if London was funded on the same basis as the Continental ports. I do not think that those facts can be denied. However, the difference is in the effect which that has on the trade of London. That is where I have disagreed with my hon. Friends and the previous Government, just as I now disagree with the present Government.
Here I must thank the Minister for his courtesy in replying to a letter which I sent him last week—I shall be sending another next week—part of which I should like to read. In reply to my point about trans-ship trade and the Continental ports taking trade from London by roll-on/roll-off or short-sea traders, the Parliamentary Secretary says:
Although there is some trans-shipment of goods from the continent to the United Kingdom it represents only a small proportion of port business; it takes place not so much because continental port charges are lower, but because shipping costs benefit from the economies of scale of the employment of large bulk carriers, extensive port facilities and storage accommodation.


I would have thought that we have plenty of that in London. He added:
In any case, since Britain is an island, transshipped goods must still enter the country through a port.
That is fine. That sentence in itself reveals a great deal. The letter continued:
This means that there is no real competition between United Kingdom and continental ports; London's real rivals are other United Kingdom ports. We believe that ports should compete freely with each other on the basis of price and service without Government subsidy.
I shall not pursue that very much further, but I believe that the matter must be thoroughly examined.
I do not believe that what has been said is correct. Even if labour relations and management were right, and even if the PLA obtained its capital reconstruction, it would still have to compete against trans-shipment trade from the Continent, the roll-on/roll-off trade, the Channel tunnel, and possibly Whitstable, which also takes trade from Rotterdam. Therefore, in passing the Bill tonight, and by providing money for redundancy in a search for viability, we may end up with less than we had, and maybe even less than that.
As I demonstrated, it would be possible for the PLA, as an organisation, to be profitable and viable without dealing with ships, and acting only on land and on its other assets. That danger must be examined. It could be examined by a Select Committee. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will be able to tell the House that these matters will be examined. Perhaps the Select Committee procedure would be too lengthy for the purposes that the Minister has in mind. But we need a measure that will induce confidence in order to ensure efficiency. Something must be done in order to clear the air. If it is not done by the House, it should be done by another body and the matter should be settled.
At the turn of the century, a Royal Commission was set up. We need a similar body now. Unless such a body is set up, the purpose of retaining the Port of London in its entirety, let alone the successful operation of a smaller PLA, will not be achieved.

Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Member for Newham,

South (Mr. Spearing) has given an intriguing social and historical tour of the Port of London. I am sure that the House is indebted to him for that, and we shall be interested to read a report of his remarks tomorrow to find out what he is advocating in relation to the Bill. I assure the House that I shall not embark Linen a similar social and historical tour of the Merseyside area, because I am sure that it would take even longer, and I hope to confine my remarks to a more specific response to the Bill and to the Minister's opening speech.
First, I shall explain why a Member from Liverpool wishes to address the House on a Bill which appears to deal exclusively with the Port of London. Perhaps I can do no better than explain that this morning I received—I suspect that all Liverpool, and possibly all Merseyside, Members received it—a communication from the chief executive in Liverpool in which he informed us that the city council had passed a resolution relating to the financial position facing the port of Liverpool. I think that I have an obligation to read it to the House. The resolution states:
The city council urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps in the interest of the economy of the city and Merseyside to grant a subsidy to the Port of Liverpool, proportionate to that recently given to the Port of London, so that the port charges in Liverpool should not be rendered so high as to be uncompetitive due to Government discrimination in favour of another port at a time of soaring unemployment in Liverpool.
That resolution and approach of the Liverpool city council will explain at the outset why I believe that, as a Liverpool Member, I have a particular interest in speaking about the Bill and the effect that it will have on Merseyside.
With the chief executive's letter was an ample and interesting report produced by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. It may be worth reading to the House the final paragraph of that report. In effect, the board is saying that the Government should apply the same principles to Liverpool as they have to London. Expenditure on manpower accounts for about 80 per cent. of the Mersey docks running costs, and the company accepts the need to continue to reduce its labour force in line with rapid changes in trade patterns and new methods of transport. It is obvious that


if Liverpool is to continue to bear voluntary severance costs, which are now accepted as a national charge in London, the competitive position of Liverpool will be weakened. Even if Liverpool were not a special development area, this would be manifestly unfair. If one takes into account the considerations of regional policy, it makes no economic sense whatsoever.
The Bill seeks to intervene by making funds available to help the London docks. Yet the Government have been dedicated to fight against public intervention. They have repeatedly stated that public funds should not be used to support ailing industry or to prop up projects which are unable to support themselves. In line with that policy, the Government have rightly reduced regional aid and, under the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, are seeking to do away with a number of bureaucratic obstacles to allow free market forces to operate. Yet, by intervening in this way, they are distorting the very opportunities that they seek to give to the private sector to operate without public intervention and control.
Regional aid distorted the economic situation by encouraging companies to go from one area of the country to another for no particular reason other than that the Government were giving substantial aid and it was so attractive that companies felt they had to go to areas with special development area status. The funds were so attractive that companies felt that they could go to those areas and, if the economic situation turned rough, they could get out without losing too much.
Regional status on Merseyside has meant that many major companies have in the last two decades gone to the area and created a great deal of employment. But as soon as there has been a downturn in the economy those companies have packed their bags and gone out equally quickly, creating massive unemployment and throwing away a great amount of Government aid which had been provided over a long period. That was the justification for not continuing with a regional aid programme to the extent and at the level which has been created up till now.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman also note that the destruction of London was the result of that policy? Industry left London and went to places such as Merseyside because it was encouraged to do so.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. It merely strengthens the case that I am about to unfold and to which I hope the Government will listen with great care.
The intervention was not confined to industrial dislocation. It went further. The compulsory purchase orders used by city councils destroyed much of the older housing in the inner areas around the docks, both in London and in Liverpool, and transferred the people to the vast council estates on the edges of and often outside the city boundaries. That dislocated the neighbourhoods and communities and reduced the rate income which the local authority would have enjoyed had the people still been living in the inner city area. The decanting of the population from the inner to the outer areas resulted in the loss not only of homes but of population and rate income. It is not surprising that one-fifth of the population of Liverpool has been decanted to the outer areas over the past two decades.
What one is arguing about is massive central Government or local government intervention which has been damaging to the local economy and often to the national economy. Far more than achieving an improvement, it has made matters worse. When the Government decided to relocate workers on Merseyside to the outer city areas, it cost the taxpayer £14,000 for each job that was relocated, destroyed many green field sites on the edges of the city which were good agricultural land and drove farmers further out into the waste lands and the rural fringes beyond. So the experience of public intervention has not been an unmitigated success.
Therefore, the policy of the Government to reduce the amount of public intervention both locally and nationally and to allow free market forces to operate unhindered was something which Conservative Members welcomed. However, it seems that the proposal in the Bill is to discriminate in favour of the London area, propping up the docks there, which


in turn will distort and discriminate against the docks on Merseyside.
If the Government intend to intervene, they may take the view that the London docks are a special case. That is always an attractive way for a Government to proceed. They may say that the docks should be treated as part of the infrastructure like the roads, electricity services or putting derelict waste land to good use—in other words, that the docks are a special case and should be treated as part of the infrastructure. The Government may say that they distinguish between the docks and the manufacturing and service industries on the basis that one produces goods which should not be interfered with and the other is part of the Government's infrastructure programme. If that is the argument that the Government are putting forward, surely they must deal with it as part of the national strategy. The docks cannot be part of the infrastructure if at the same time the Government say that they will treat them as such in only one area. If it is a national strategy, it must apply to all areas.
On Merseyside we have suffered from a great deal of unco-ordinated Government action. For example, we have a Minister with responsibility for small firms, yet only last month small firms in my constituency were being pulled down to make way for more public housing, with the result that jobs were lost and £100,000 worth of export trade was lost. We cannot have a Minister responsible for one aspect of Government policy when the local authority is doing something else.
The airport on Merseyside has doubled its throughput in the past year and now has more cargo than Stansted, yet the Government discriminate in favour of Manchester airport. It may well be that the argument is that there is a national airports policy and the Government have taken a decision to support Manchester airport to the detriment of Liverpool airport. But as regards the docks the Government cannot say on the one hand that they will discriminate in favour of London and on the other hand that they will not have a national ports policy.
We need a clear indication from the Government of the basis for continued intervention, albeit following the previous Government's policy. Is it that

it is part of an infrastructure programme? If so, let it be applied to Merseyside. Or is it a one off and the start of a process of the Government intervening and putting public funds into the docks because of the difficulties there?
One of the problems that the docks have on the West Coast of Britain is that they face the wrong way. They face out to the United States, whereas the docks on the East Coast have the advantage of Europe. Merseyside needs special help to counteract the problems that it faces in persuading others to come to the North-West. Therefore, to give favour to London without giving favour to Merseyside is an added insult. Further problems will be created. As I said in my intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, we cannot get regional aid for the docks because they are considered to be part of a service industry. Regional aid does not go as far as providing money for service industries.
I am asking the Minister to realise that by the Bill he is indicating that he is involved in a programme of discrimination against Merseyside. He is also indicating that he is subsidising a port in the East in favour of a port in the West. By enacting a Bill of this magnitude, he will ensure that Merseyside is less competitive.
What is the point of enacting a Bill that will make Merseyside less competitive when only last month it was announced in the Budget that enterprise zones would be introduced, which we shall probably have on Merseyside? It does not make sense for one Ministry to say "We shall help Merseyside" and for another Ministry to enact Bills that will do a disservice to Merseyside. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to say that he will extend the support that he is offering London to the Merseyside docks, which are in a virtually identical phase in their history.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: At times I found it difficult to relate the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) to the long title, which reads:
to give financial assistance for measures to reduce the manpower of the Port of London Authority with a view to restoring the profitability of their undertaking".
I shall confine my remarks to that title and question the underlying assumption.
In common with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not wish to oppose the Bill. I, too, want the money to be made available to assist with the redundancies that unfortunately will still be necessary. The long title seems to imply that the profitability of the PLA can be restored merely by reducing the number of persons employed by it. It ignores two aspects of the PLA's problem. First, it ignores the special features of the port. Secondly, it ignores the competition that Britain's largest and principal port faces from other European ports. It has to compete with them on an unfair basis.
Reference has already been made to the Touche Ross report. I shall refer to it in rather more detail. It is interesting to note that the report came to the conclusion that if the port of Hamburg prepared conventional accounts it would be shown to make a large operating deficit. The analysis shows it to operate at a loss even before account is taken of depreciation and interest on capital. In other words, the port of Hamburg in West Germany—a country that is the great idol of the Conservative Party—continues to operate with a large deficit.
There are reasons of a historical nature that underlie the way in which the Port of London has grown up and developed. However, there are other reasons, and important reasons. It is recognised that the existence of a thriving port serves as a catalyst. It produces other jobs in surrounding firms.
Conversely, as the activities of the Port of London decline, the number of jobs in the inner London area, and even in my constituency of Thurrock, decline. Many jobs depend and exist solely as a result of the existence of the Port of London. Others recognise that fact and are prepared to put in subsidies at the appropriate point rather than introduce the notion of a free enterprise zone. They are prepared to provide the necessary subsidies and to let them produce other jobs.
Let us look in detail at the estimates given in the report. Let us use its method of comparison and take not only Hamburg but the other three ports that are analysed. If the Rotterdam conditions applied to London, the percentage change in port charges would be 14 per

cent. If the Hamburg conditions applied, the percentage change in charges would be 84 per cent. If the Dunkirk conditions applied, the percentage change would be 30 per cent. and for Antwerp, 34 per cent.
The Port of London Authority is operating in the face of competition from ports that arc subsidised in a variety of ways. In addition, it has to take on more extensive responsibilities than some of them. Those responsibilities may not represent large elements in the financial accountability of the Port of London Authority, but they play their part. For example, the Port of London is responsible for maintaining and dredging the river as far as Teddington. It is not a great burden, but it is an additional one. Its main competitors do not have to bear that burden. The Bill should take that into consideration.
The Minister's underlying philosophy implies that one needs simply to reduce the number of those employed by the Port of London Authority to make it viable. That ignores those other features.
The money is designed to cover severance payments. It seeks to reduce the number of registered dockers on the A and B lists. However, no provision has been made for the problems that will arise as a result of reducing the work force. Some of those problems will be matters of union negotiation, and understandably they may be a cause of union resistance. For example, men on the category B list cannot be particularly encouraged to leave before men on the category A list. I do not quarrel with that, because those on the category B list will usually be those who have sustained injuries in the course of their work. Many of them will be elderly. They therefore worked there before decasualisation and they suffered all the iniquities of that system.
I am not criticising the fact that severance payments cannot be used to encourage category B men to leave before category A men. However, reducing the number of those employed by the Port of London Authority will not solve the problem. A further factor has been ignored, namely, the age of those employed. The age profile of dockers in the Port of London Authority shows a peak in the 50–55 age range. In fact, 72 per cent. of the registered men are over 40. The PLA has


not been taking on younger men for a number of years now. That means that the authority is put in a rather difficult position—it has an ageing work force with very little input of newer, younger men. One cannot ignore the special employment difficulties, because they contribute to the viability or otherwise of the Port of London.
In addition, there is another issue to which the Price Waterhouse report refers rather delicately on page 7. It does not go into any detail but it says:
Severances of non-registered men have been delayed because of difficulties and delays in negotiations, though we understand that staff severance terms are sufficiently generous to attract an adequate number of applications.
The version of the Price Waterhouse report that has been made available to us—an expurgated version, which leaves out certain features that the PLA would regard as commercially confidential—does not give any information to back up that point.
Many dockers, through their unions, have complained that the administrative side of the PLA is top-heavy. They also complain about the lack of experience, skill and imagination of those employed on the administrative side. They suggest that delays in getting ships in and out of the port are due not to the unwillingness of the dockers to carry out the job well and efficiently but to deficiencies on the administrative side. Whether or not these allegations are true, it is difficult to judge, but surely these are matters that require investigation. Simply to produce a Bill that seeks the reduction of the work force is not enough.
When one reads any speech made by a member of the Government, or any press comment, or when one looks at the Price Waterhouse report, one sees that the reduction in the work force means a reduction in the number of dockers. The staff side is rarely discussed in detail and is not discussed in the report. That is an aspect that should be thoroughly examined if the Minister intends to exercise his powers under clause 1(2), which says:
the Minister may impose such conditions as he thinks fit".
Does that mean that the Minister will investigate these problems? Will he carry out a thorough investigation to show the numbers employed on the staff side, what their work involves, how quickly

the necessary reductions in manpower are made there and the terms offered? Will he do anything about these aspects in his efforts to make the Port of London viable, or will he simply ignore such problems? These problems are the sort that sour industrial relations in the PLA.
There is resentment among dockers over the fact that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians, as they put it. There is resentment about the delays caused, as they see it, by inadequate and inefficient clerical operations. These are matters that should be thoroughly investigated by the Minister. They are matters in which the unions representing the staff side should be involved as well. However, none of this is referred to in the Price Waterhouse report, which skated over the matter in the sentence or two that I quoted earlier.
There are other pressures within the PLA that I want to examine in detail. The authority claims that its financial position has been made much worse by the loss of shipping lines to competitors. It appears that three lines have transferred operations from the PLA dock—APCL, EMEC and CAROL. The loss of trade involved is 40,000 containers, and the handling charges are £70 per container. Those containers left the multi-user berth of the northern depot of the PLA on about 15 March.
The PLA claims that there was a loss to competitors. In fact, it was a loss to a special sort of competitor—a private employer within the port; and that creates special tensions and difficulties for the PLA and creates part of its financial problems. What are the implications of such a loss for the PLA? It was not a case of the customers being lost to another British port or to a Continental port; it was a loss within the port.
The special problems are ignored by the Price Waterhouse report. They create special financial burdens for the PLA, which not only faces a strange sort of internal competition but has to pick up redundancies created by private employers in the docks. The PLA is seeking to reduce its work force, but that force can increase, because the PLA takes up dockers who have been made redundant by private employers.
The Minister said nothing about the special problems. He proposes, in the long title of the Bill, a simple solution.

Mr. Moate: When were the contracts lost? The Price Waterhouse report took account of events only up to the middle of last year. Is the hon. Lady saying that the total loss of revenue to the upper docks from those jobs is about £3 million a year?

Dr. McDonald: I was merely quoting that case as an example of the sort of problem faced by the PLA. It appears that the losses occurred in March this year. They are not covered by the Price Waterhouse report; they are merely an example of the sort of difficulties faced by the PLA that are not adequately covered by the Price Waterhouse report or by the Bill, which seems to suggest that viability can be restored merely by reducing the number of employees in the docks.
The Price Waterhouse conclusion is:
We do not believe that a case for a capital reconstruction has yet been demonstrated, largely because it is not possible to determine the proper relationship between the PLA's liabilities and assets until more progress has been made in restructuring the PLA's business so as to achieve a profitable port operation, in particular through the elimination of uneconomic working practices and the severance of surplus manpower.
That begs the whole question. These other features of the authority's operations must be taken into account.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is on a very important point. Can she confirm something that I believe to be true? She said that the contracts were lost by the PLA, I believe at Tilbury, as an employer of labour and as a handler of cargo, but am I right in thinking that whilst it may have lost that cash flow and that revenue it retained the revenue of harbour dues, and that if the berth to which my hon. Friend referred was inside Tilbury dock it retained the tonnage dues on the ship, and possibly cargo tonnage dues as dues to the dock company, in which capacity it was also involved?

Dr. McDonald: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right. There are two kinds of losses—the loss to the authority as an employer and the loss of the handling charges. But there are other revenues that the authority derives. Therefore, to say that it has lost three customers over recent months and that

that is an additional cause of all its problems, and to suggest that that could well be because of the lack of progress towards improvement in working practices, as the authority often does, is to give an inadequate reason.
In fact, it appears that the real reason for the loss of the customer was that the mechanical equipment was not available. At times there is only one straddler carrier available, and sometimes there are two. In other words, the loss was caused by lack of investment and lack of maintenance of the mechanical equipment necessary for carrying out the work. That is different from a need for improvement in working practices as a reason for loss of customers.
Those are the kinds of complex issues that make the Price Waterhouse report's conclusion superficial. It does not look at other reasons for lack of viability, such as the lack of adequate mechanical equipment and lack of investment. It does not look at the peculiar problems created by the fact that the authority competes as an employer with private employers within the port. Therefore, the Price Waterhouse conclusion is inadequate and superficial. If the Minister is to intervene, as clause 1 gives him the power to do, he should do so only after a thorough investigation of the authority's special difficulties.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I should like to emphasise my hon. Friend's point. The reason why the Price Waterhouse report was published on this occasion, as distinct from the previous occasions, was that it contained nothing of value. Previous reports were not published, because of the confidentiality of their contents. Therefore, the present report is clearly inadequate for its purpose.

Dr. McDonald: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting what I have said.
The authority faces another special problem. I do not think that it is one for which it can be entirely excused. Reference is made to Tilbury as a container port. One of the most important sections of that port is the Northfleet-Hope container terminal, which was purpose-built, being designed mainly for Australian and New Zealand trade. Australia continues to import many British goods, which can leave the country through Tilbury. In 1978, Australia


imported £856 million-worth of United Kingdom goods.
However, a special problem will have to be faced by Tilbury with regard to EEC restrictions on the import of dairy products and sheepmeat from New Zealand, which will gravely affect trade. The Government could perhaps look to the EEC for reimbursement, since it is Community decisions that will affect trade in Tilbury in the very near future if severe restrictions are imposed.
The Bill, although welcome and necessary, is in every way inadequate. Its underlying philosophy is misconceived. It is not sufficient to believe that by the continuing reduction of the work force the problems of the Port of London Authority will be solved. The Bill does not deal with the fact that the port faces subsidised competition from other countries, which is right because of the additional employment created in surrounding areas.
In Committee we shall be pressing the Minister for essential information about the operation of the Port of London Authority. We shall seek to improve the Bill and ask the Minister to provide further help for the Port of London Authority to give it the opportunity to become viable in the future.

Mr. Roger Moate: I apologise for missing the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), especially as in the second part there were points with which I readily express agreement. I am glad that the hon. Lady took the opportunity to emphasise that the damage inflicted on our trade by membership of the EEC has significant consequences for our ports. I hope that her fears are groundless and that the Government will stand up strongly for the interests of our traditional suppliers in Australia and New Zealand and that their trade will continue to come into all British ports.
I also agreed with the hon. Lady's general scepticism about the probable success of the strategy that the Bill is designed to support. I do not disagree with the need for the Bill or wish to see the strategy fail. However, I doubt whether the unions, management or customers involved in port reorganisation can see the immediate future as anything but a period of great trial and tribulation.

It is a difficult operation, and success is by no means guaranteed. I am sceptical about the chances of maintaining the commercial viability of the upper docks. However, it is a period of experiment, and I hope that the message will not go out from this House, as every speech so far appears to have indicated, that the experiment is doomed to failure. That would be disheartening for everyone involved.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which was helpful and constructive. Hon. Members representing dockland areas must be under tremendous strain. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues representing neighbouring constituencies must feel at times that they bear the burden of the collapse of empire on their shoulders. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis on why trade has left not necessarily the London river but the upper docks. It is not the collapse of empire or the changing pattern of world trade. Much of that trade has moved to other United Kingdom ports such as Tilbury, Medway or Southampton.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Thurrock did the House a service in emphasising that the Port of London is not just the upper docks. They emphasised the vast tonnage which exists within the river itself. Even if both upper docks were to be closed—and that is not the proposition before the House—the total tonnage handled on the riverside wharves and at Tilbury would still leave the London river and the Port of London Authority as probably the largest port in the United Kingdom, leaving aside oil tonnage. It is a very considerable port indeed.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We were not trying to be pessimistic but trying to say that, although the Government's intention may have been correct, we do not think that the remedy is yet adequate.
I have been able to ascertain the answer to the question put to me earlier by the hon. Gentleman about tonnage. The 1978 annual report of the PLA shows that 43·7 million tonnes was handled in the river—that includes the PLA grain terminal, which is in the river—and 5·8 million tonnes in PLA dock premises inside the impounded docks.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. He further empasises the point that I was just making and that he also made in his speech.
There is a future for the Port of London, but clearly it is undergoing a period of great and very painful change. I understood the hon. Gentleman's point that he felt that the Bill would not support the changes necessary to secure profitability and would not help to secure viability. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is no action that this Government or any Government could take, or could have taken, that would achieve that purpose, because the reasons for the decline of the upper docks are much more fundamental than anything that subsidies could correct. They are geographical; they are social.
I do not believe that the upper docks can have a long-term future of this kind. I cannot see that the enclosed docks have a long-term future. I cannot see how the upper docks, with the long journey up river, can compete with the new and highly specialised facilities and the natural deep-water facilities that exist at so many other docks. I cannot believe that in a situation in which the customer is free to choose where to go, ships will come up river indefinitely.
We are involved in competition, and my right hon. Friend the Minister made a point which is fundamental to the whole Bill and the whole debate—that ports must pass the test of competitiveness and commercial viability. It is not a matter of free enterprise versus State control, because the Port of London is competing against nationalised docks. It is competing against publicly owned docks of one form or another, just as it is competing against privately owned docks and against other British dock workers.
In the last two decades, there has been the most remarkable revolution in shipping. The most fantastic changes have taken place with the container revolution. Literally billions of pounds have been invested in new ships and new handling techniques. It has happened on a scale that is almost comparable with the sort of investment that has gone into the exploration of the North Sea. This has involved such fundamental changes in a very short space of time that I can-

not believe that docks such as the Royal or the India or Millwall could have kept pace with them.
One can see these changes at Southampton, at Tilbury and in the Medway Port Authority in my constituency. There have been some problems now and then, but basically the changes have been achieved with the co-operation of the dock labour force in this country. It is not that somehow we are trying to force the pace of change upon unwilling people. It has been an industrial revolution, and I cannot believe that one can isolate London from all this, which was what the hon. Member for Newham, South was talking of doing. I do not wish to disparage the efforts to reduce the dock labour force in London. It has happened on a remarkable scale. Basically, the trends are too powerful to pretend that we can sustain the docks ad infinitum. If we do that, perhaps we shall damage certain areas and make it harder for them to adjust in the long term. I do not see that as an argument of despair.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Port of London (Finance Assistance) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock or for four hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Moate: This is not the time to go into the arguments about urban development or enterprise zones. In the long term—and much pain can be suffered in the long term—there are immense opportunities for capital, new jobs, new construction and opportunities. We may do a disservice in the long term if we try to sterilise the opportunities.

Mr. Spearing: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he agree that the fact that a ship of 44 ft. draught could enter an enterprise zone in the middle of the Isle of Dogs would help?

Mr. Moate: I would rather leave the urban development corporation to decide that. It is not impossible. If it is decided to secure new berthing facilities for the benefit of existing and new users, so be it. However, I believe that that is a marginal question in relation to


the whole strategy. I sympathise with the case made by the hon. Member for Newham, South. Nobody misunderstands the situation. Visiting dockland is like visiting a ghost city in the middle of an economic and social desert. The situation is tragic, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to the problem.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) criticised the Bill. He said that it had a limited purpose and was restricted to running down manpower. To be fair, he should have quoted the Price Waterhouse report, which stated:
The nub of the PLA's present financial problem is a combination of the uneconomic use of manpower and its inability to divest itself of manpower which is already, surplus … The PLA will not return to viability until it has improved its working practices and shed its surplus manpower.
The right hon. Gentleman might disagree with that, but the report was commissioned by the Labour Government.
The Bill provides the means to change manning levels. It provides the main weapon through which the PLA can return to viability. That is not the Government's assessment; it is the PLA management's assessment of the strategy. On that basis, the Government introduce the legislation.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness also criticised the Government for changing their strategy. He said that the previous Government maintained the concentration option that involved the two docks. The Government have not changed the strategy; the Port of London Authority has changed it. It has concluded that it is no longer possible to retain both the upper docks. The authority listed the reasons for that and we understand them. It mentioned the deterioration of financial circumstances since it accepted the concentration option. The Government are backing the judgment of the PLA management.

Mr. Booth: If the hon. Gentleman reads the five-year strategic plan of the PLA, he will see stated at least three times that it is the authority's view that there cannot be commercial viability as I and the authority define it without capital restructuring. Therefore, one cannot contend, as the hon. Gentleman

does, that the PLA believes that the limited scope of the Bill is sufficient to restore the authority to viability.

Mr. Moate: I shall come to capital reconstruction in a moment. I am quoting from the PLA statement dated 3 March 1980. It is fair enough to take the PLA's statement as a basis for its views on the position.
The reason for the further deterioration, which is why the PLA has abandoned the concentration options—it is clearly stated here—concerns the two weeks' strike over pay, which cost the PLA about £2 million. In addition, the authority has lost about £4 million so far this year. In spite of progress on manpower reductions, there has been insufficient movement towards implementing the changes in working practices identified as being essential to the improvement of the PLA's competitive position.
I do not suppose that anyone enjoys having to make a major change of strategy like that. If, however, there has been this substantial deterioration in the financial position, one sympathises with the decision of the PLA to close one of the upper docks. The Government are backing the PLA management. That is their stated intention, and the Bill quite rightly embodies that approach.
Capital reconstruction is directly linked to this whole case. The Government are absolutely right at this stage not to embark upon such a reconstruction. I say that even though I have frequently urged that public authorities and nationalised industries should not be asked indefinitely to carry unreasonable interest charges. That argument does not apply in this case, because I am not sure that we are placing the PLA on the sort of footing that will lead to viability. I expressed my sceptisism about the chances of success for this strategy, and it would be premature for a major financial reconstruction to be undertaken at this stage.
If a major breakthrough was achieved and it was clear that there was a long-term commercially viable basis for the operation, there would be a case for looking at this situation, as with other industries. However, the PLA is not like other nationalised industries, It is in direct competition with other ports, and if the PLA is relieved of the obligation


to service its capital the same must be done for Liverpool and all the other ports with which the PLA competes directly. That could not be done for one port without its being done for all the others. Therefore, the Government are right not to proceed to a capital reconstruction.
This argument leads me to the question whether the PLA is a special case. I say that it should not be in terms of capital reconstruction, but there is justification for making it a special case in respect of other subsidies. My hon. Friends representing Merseyside constituencies have been saying that if this approach is good enough for London, it is good enough for their area and extra help should be given to other ports. However, this is a special case only because it involves an obligation inherited from the previous Government. We are honouring a commitment that was made. There is no case for extending subsidies to every other port simply because of the special circumstances of London and the sheer scale of change that has taken place there. It would be neither right nor sensible to spend taxpayers' money liberally throughout the other ports. That would make a bad situation worse. It is hard to concede one special case and then refuse others, but that is what has happened here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) argued that his area should get special grants on a regional basis because, as a service industry, port operations on Merseyside are excluded from the present facilities. I have a port in my constituency, and my immediate reaction is to ask why Merseyside should be a special case and receive a subsidy and why we in the South-East should not get the same when we are in direct competition with other ports. The answer is that we do not want to make any special cases but that if we have made one special case—and with a port subsidy of £70 million it is a very expensive special case, which the taxpayer has to bear—let us have no more.
I turn now to what will be seen as a parochial point, although it is more than that. Part of the Medway Port Authority is located in my constituency, in the form of the port of Sheerness, which has been very successful. It is profitable. It has superb industrial relations. Its success has

been achieved through good management, good industrial relations and a determined effort to go out and win business. It has succeeded.
On a number of occasions the Port of London Authority has expressed a desire to have what it calls an estuarial authority—in other words, to take in the area of the Medway Port Authority and embody it in the general PLA operation. The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to Maplinitis. It is part of the same disease. The PLA must concentrate on sorting out its existing commercial activities and not seek ways out by expanding its empire. That is what it has been trying to do by talking about Maplin and Medway.
We are in a period where small is beautiful. The smaller the management unit, the better. Therefore, the better it will be for ports if, for example, Tilbury and the Medway are seen by the PLA almost as self-contained units and we do not seek to have bigger authorities taking over more and more ports simply because of a superficial geographical argument about estuarial authorities.
I repeat my doubts on the question whether the Bill, with the injection of money, will succeed. I do not believe that the Government have any choice in the matter. There is an absolute commitment to go ahead on this basis. I hope that there will be more success than that which I expect. We must resist any further subsidies going to any other ports. In the interests of the dock workers and the country as a whole, we must have a port industry that stands up to the test of competitiveness and commercial viability.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) steered a slightly erratic course before he arrived at his destination. He asked a number of practical questions, quite rightly, and he raised a number of rhetorical questions, also quite rightly. He sorted out his differences with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the impression that the House is giving on the question whether the experiment is doomed to failure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South fears, or is an opportunity that deserves more support than the Government are


able to offer at this time, which is the view of many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The basic question that the hon. Gentleman was asking was whether we are deciding that in the London area—whether it be the ports of London or the Port of London Authority—we are to provide a port dependent upon the amount of money that is available or whether we decide the sort of port facilities that should be available and then make the money available. Which is our priority? What can we do in London? Do we provide the money, or decide that there is only so much money available and that those responsible for the port should do the best that they can? That is the question that will have to be discussed in Committee, although I am not volunteering to take part in any Committee proceedings.
I confess—and this is meant to be praise for those who have spoken before me, some eloquently, and some eloquently but almost endlessly, but that is another story—that this evening has been one of the few occasions when I have learnt something from listening to all the speeches on Second Reading. Too often, I have been tempted to say that we should have a vote at the beginning of a debate and then have the debate, followed by a second vote to see whether the debate has changed anybody's mind. Tonight I have learnt much. First, I have learnt from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown), who has briefed me consistently for 15 years on all matters concerning London. We happen to share an office here, and that is part of the rent that I have to pay to him. I have learnt also from my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South and for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). They told me more about the Port of London Authority and the port of London than I had known before.
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who is a ports Member. In the North-West we think that Barrow is mainly a shipbuilding area rather than a ports area, but he is a ports Member. Equally, I learnt much from the Minister. I hope that I learn as much from the Parliamentary Secretary. When the Minister had finished

speaking I knew more about the Bill, although I was less enamoured of it. The phrase "The £70 million for the port" sounds marvellous. Yet the Minister is in trouble because most of it has been pre-empted and already spent. However, I learnt much from him.
We are agreed that the money is to be available to the PLA and to those who are employed by that authority. At times tonight it must have been galling for Members from the London area to hear the debate almost become one about the ports of the Mersey. It must have been galling for them to listen to Second Reading speeches galore on something which was almost entirely out of order. However, I shall not go on about that in view of the present occupant of the Chair. He has been generous tonight. He knew exactly what was happening.
The Bill has implications for every other port. Therefore, I make no apology, as has no other hon. Member, for intervening. I admit to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir. G. Page) that I was literally sea green with envy at the way in which he connived to make his speech on the Bill, I trust that I do not embarrass him by saying that we are not exactly allies on this, but at least we are working in parallel. That should be of some consolation.
The Minister recognised that a Bill with this purpose was being prepared by the previous Labour Government and that such a Bill was one of the casualties of the general election. The Minister used the intriguing phrase that he was merely honouring inherited obligations. My local authority would say that this Government have inherited obligations on housing, not least on the sale of council housing, where apparently sales of council houses under the Labour Government were a great deal more than under the Conservative Government. They would say that the Government had inherited obligations about education. Teachers will come pouring into this place to tell the Government about the obligations which they inherited from the Labour Government. Social services workers and pensioners will do likewise.
I do not complain that the Minister has accepted this limited obligation, but I find it strange that he has done it in this way. In any case, there are significant differences between the Bill as proposed


by the Labour Government and this Bill. This is a residual Bill. It is only part of what my right hon. Friends and their colleagues were intending.
According to clause 1(1),
The Minister of Transport may, with the consent of the Treasury, give financial assistance to the Port of London Authority.
Clause 1(3) states:
The Secretary of State"—
I presume that that is the Secretary of State for Industry—
may with the consent of the Treasury reimburse the National Dock Labour Board".
The truest title for the Bill should not be Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill but, rather, "The Treasury Veto on the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill". We know that no Minister, unless he is a particularly strong one—even stronger than the present Minister of Transport—can act virtually independently of Treasury advice, pressures and persuasion. But I can remember few Bills in which it is written that the Minister or the Secretary of State cannot act within their terms without the specific consent of the Treasury, especially as the Minister has now explained that at least 95 per cent. of the money has been pre-empted anyway. When we go into Committee, I think that that clause could reasonably be taken out without loss of face to the Treasury or to anyone else. It seems an unnecessary use of words.
There are some questions that I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. Within the terms of the long title, I would argue that the way in which the money can be spent is tightly drawn. If there is any hope of the money being spent in any other way, in order to reduce the need for redundancies, I hope that the Minister can cheer me up a little. But at the moment, under the terms of the Long Title, the only way in which the money can be spent is on redundancy payments of one kind or another. That is my interpretation, and I hope that I am wrong.
If the money is to be spent on redundancy payments, severance payments or early retirement, what proportion of the money will the Department of Employment vote in order to carry on straightforward redundancy payments under national social services and social security legislation, thus leaving the severance and

retirement payments to be carried by the Port of London Authority and the National Dock Labour Board? There are differences between redundancy payments, severance payments and early retirement payments. Will all those payments be included under the terms of the Bill, or will the redundancy payments be carried by the Department of Employment Vote? Now, at the risk of offending some good friends, in both the London and the Liverpool docks, the Bill will inevitably raise questions from those who are not employed in the docks industry about the differences in redundancy payments, severance payments and job loss payments within some sections of the public and private sectors.
A worker employed by the Liverpool local authority who becomes redundant receives straightforward national redundancy payments. A person employed by Meccano who becomes redundant receives straightforward redundancy payments. A person employed by the General Electric Company or by British Rail would receive straightforward redundancy payments if he became redundant. Some private companies provide a little more. In the public sector, people who become redundant because of Government controls and restrictions on local authority expenditure receive straightforward redundancy payments. Why should their taxes and allowances go to help people in the broad docks industry, and perhaps in British Steel?
People who are earning less than those employed in the docks or in the steel industry will be asking questions. Some people will say "Good luck to them". But for every person who wishes them good luck there will be 10 who complain that they could not receive such payments. This is a difficult question, but it is time that both the unions and the TUC examined the matter again, because the Bill will inevitably raise that sort of question. We need to find a more equitable way of dealing with the matter.
Clause 1(1)(b) provides for financial assistance
for the carrying on of their undertaking while such measures are being taken.
That is very broad. In one way it could be interpreted—I hope that the Minister will say that it will be so interpreted—as support for measures that will reduce the need for further redundancies. If this


can be done in that way, I would support it. But this is a broad brush. The Minister gave some information, but we need to know more.
We have been given some information about clause 1(5), dealing with
Any grant, loan, guarantee or payment made … before the passing of this Act.
Even the right hon. Member for Crosby was confused on the question whether there are one or two loans for £25 million. Perhaps by means of a written answer or statement we could calculate how much of the £70 million has already been pre-empted, in what way, how far back the calculations went and what amount is left. What sums of money are we disposing of under the Bill that have not already been promised?
The Bill has serious implications for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and its employees, for all those who use the ports of the Mersey, for all district and city councils in that area, and even for the not yet created urban development corporation. I do not wish to be parochial, so let me refer to the Manchester Ship Canal Company. I am not causing any waves or panic. Merseyside Members of Parliament are asked by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company not to oppose the Bill, not to cause the Minister any difficulties, and not to cause any waves. We do not wish to cause any difficulties, but we wish to point out that what is done in London inevitably affects every other part of the country. I do not ask for a national plan for ports—I am suspicious about strategic plans or national plans—but investment of this sort is extremely expensive. We seem to be acting in an imprecise, inefficient and impractical way. We have a competition in deciding what the customer may or may not want and then we have a whole trail of redundancies and waste of capital.
The main difficulty of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board—as it was—for too many early years was that the managers were mainly committed to the shippers. The board and the docks were run for the shippers, not for the port and investment in the long term.
We are concerned and interested and want to support the Bill, but we shall be asking for more aid for the Port of London Authority, so that the area may have

the kind of port that it deserves, and we will be asking for equal relative aid and support for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.

Mr. John Prescott: A number of hon. Members have said that the debate has been interesting and valuable. I agree, and I do not use those words lightly. Hon. Members have contributed to a debate. They have reflected their experience over the years in their own constituencies. My experience as a seaman for 10 years and having worked as a docker for a short time means that I have a particular interest in the industry. Indeed, my maiden speech in 1970 was about the docks industry. To that extent, I have a close personal interest in the development of docks policy.
The Minister made it clear that he was wedded to a belief in competition. That is not unique for him. He has expressed that view in other pieces of legislation that we have debated relating to transport. Even though his belief appears to be flying in the faces of a number of operators, he is wedded to that belief in competition. That is clearly an ideological belief. I do not criticise anyone for having such a commitment. Mine is the opposite. It reflects my Socialist way of looking at these problems, and particularly how I develop my own solutions to them.
The Labour Party clearly reflects the interventionist view. This is a matter of record. Looking at the development of ports policy in the last two decades, we see a clear and distinct difference between the two major parties.
The Minister is going much further with his policy than previous Conservative Governments have gone, particularly in regard to the abolition of the National Ports Council, which was a Conservative-created creature in the days when quangos were not condemned as such and were readily created by Governments of either major party.
The Minister has shown that he understands some of the problems of decline. He mentioned traffic. I shall not refer again to the problems. It is clear that there has been a considerable decline in traffic not only for the Port of London Authority but for a number of established port authorities. I think that there is a


connection between the established port authorities and the advantage of small being beautiful, as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) described it. There is an important lesson in that for port development which I want to draw out in my contribution.
The Minister indicated that the main problem was a decline in traffic. He referred to technological changes, as did other hon. Members—the great bulk ships for grain, raw materials, oil and petrol and the change to containerisation. All these matters have had a considerable effect on port development and investment. At the same time, they have wreaked considerable havoc in the loss of jobs.
I was glad that the Minister referred to the price that has been paid by labour due to the decline in traffic. Thousands of people have lost their jobs due to these changes. To that extent, a considerable price has been paid by those who work in this industry, particularly in the major ports. However, the Minister's conclusion seemed to be that there should be greater misery for the PLA because of his belief that as labour accounted for 70 per cent. of the operating costs of the port it was the major area for cost reduction.
I am not arguing that there is not a case for a reduction in manpower. A number of authorities have said that this must take place. Indeed, it is inevitable when one considers how the collapse of private employers in this industry has led to the need for the remaining employers, through the dock labour schemes, to take on the surplus labour. That has created problems. Therefore, even if one were not reducing the traditional labour force of the PLA, one would still be left with the problem of having to carry a surplus labour force with declining traffic, and that has created real problems for the PLA.
When referring to the Bill I found a little confusion. It seemed that on one occasion the Minister was saying that he felt that the way forward was to give this kind of finance to the PLA and to tell it that the Government would give it money at this stage, in the hope that the PLA would implement the manpower policy that the Government believe is essential to achieve viability.
The Minister was attacked by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen), who said "If the Government are giving this kind of money to London, why are they not giving it to Liverpool, which also has difficulty with labour costs?" Indeed, if one reads the statements of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company over the past few weeks one finds that it is clear that the Liverpool docks have lost £7 million, £5 million of which is directly attributable to labour costs. To that extent, Liverpool has a case for asking for Government help.
The Minister relied on his argument that the present Government inherited the Bill from the previous Administration. He said "It really is not our Bill." I was not sure whether the Minister was actually endorsing the fact that the PLA merited financial help because if it was not helped it would go bankrupt. That is the reality of the present state of the PLA; it would be bankrupt without the proposed loans. That was the reality in 1978 when the Labour Government said that they were prepared to make such loans available to the PLA.
If the Minister inherited that commitment from the Labour Administration, he has not been prepared to inherit another commitment made by the Labour Government at that time, against the advice of the PLA. The chairman of the PLA at that time said that it was essential that the upper docks should be closed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) made clear that that was a price that he was not prepared to impose, because of the consequences that it would have for the community. He therefore made it a condition that this money should be given but that the upper docks should be retained as part of the plan. Hence the reason for the concentration strategy that is in the five-year plan of the PLA. The concentration strategy meant that the two upper docks, Millwall and India, would be retained as a service.
It is clear that the PLA, with a new chairman and in new circumstances, feels that the dispute and other factors, such as continuing losses, have no longer left it the option to retain those two docks. My point is that it is not simply a matter of inheriting the financial guarantees given by the previous Administration, because the present Government have not given


the same guarantees in terms of the effects on the community.
The Government, and especially the Minister, are wedded to the philosophy of competition. That is the wont of this Government; it is evident from public statements made by the Minister. I have a copy of The Port for Wednesday 2 April, and the headline is "Fowler's message—Do it Yourself." He is reported as having said, at the annual luncheon of the National Port Employers Association,
What the Government does not want to do is interfere in the way you are running your businesses.
The article continues:
The previous decade had been marked by Government intervention in the industry. But the present Government intended to make the 1980s the decade in which 'this tide of intervention' receded.
That is a clear and unequivocal statement against intervention in any form. It is interesting and raises the question of Liverpool. Nevertheless, it indicates that the Minister clearly felt that intervention was something in which he was not going to be involved. Tonight, however, he informed the House that he was using the NPC to look at the claim of Liverpool about its financial difficulties.
The National Ports Council was originally designed to be a tool of Government intervention by an earlier Tory Government, who believed in a form of intervention. It stemmed from an Act of Parliament that was a direct response to the Rochdale report, which recommended a national ports authority. At that time the Conservative Government could not bring themselves to establish authorities; they much preferred the advisory role of the National Ports Council.
It is clear that there is a distinct difference between the two sides of the House on intervention. Previous Conservative Governments did not go so far as the present one appear to go. They saw a certain role for Government intervention. In many instances intervention has ensued from reports commissioned by Tory Governments.
A major inquiry into the ports was led by Lord Rochdale in 1961. That inquiry was established by a Tory Government, who were concerned about the obvious obsolescence and surplus capacity. I think that it will be generally agreed that the Rochdale report was one

of the best reports on the ports. It recommended a national ports authority, reorganisation, a national plan for the development of the ports, and the end of the deplorable nineteenth century casual labour practices. The Tory Government's response was to establish the National Ports Council.
The council does not have a great deal of teeth, but I regret that it is leaving the scene. What is to replace it, if anything? The Government say that they do not intend to intervene. However, the council has an appeals function. Only a week ago I brought to the Minister's attention the fact that the council had that function. It was intended to deal with monopoly powers. For example, Sir Humphrey Browne, of the British Transport Docks Board, rules more by his head than his heart.

Mr. Fowler: A nationalised organisation.

Mr. Prescott: Indeed. It has the greatest return of all the port authorities. I know why that is so. There are many who are redundant in the area that I represent, and those redundancies indicate clearly why Sir Humphrey's policies are so successful.
When shippers want to appeal against the charges that may be imposed upon them by the ports, they appeal to the National Ports Council. What does the Minister propose to replace that appeal function? I read in one report that he was considering transferring the role to the British Ports Association. Surely that body cannot have an independent function. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, he may indicate the Government's thinking on the appeal function. It seems that the Government will be identified as intervening in a form of price procedure.
Labour's policy is evident in intervention. That is very much what the Rochdale report recommended. From 1964 to 1970, the then Labour Government embarked upon a massive investment programme. That is relevant to the programme of capital debt charges and the reconstruction of capital, the latter going very much to the heart of the PLA. The Rochdale report called for a massive investment programme, and that was implemented by the previous Labour Government, especially in the London


area. There was massive development in the Tilbury area in containers. There was the programme of decasualisation. Unfortunately, the Labour Government were thrown out of office before they could enact the Bill that was designed to reorganise the industry.
It was also a traumatic period for the port authority. It provides one of the first examples of a Government embarking upon competition yet failing to help when the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board collapsed. One of the first debates that I heard on docks policy shocked some Conservative Members. They argued that widows who had invested in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board would have to pay the price of policies pursued by the various users of that port. Those users exploited the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and refused to allow it to charge the proper amount for using its facilities.
At the same time, a White Paper was published embodying the policy that there should be a great financial commitment and that there should be a commercial policy. Indeed, it was envisaged that there should be a 13 per cent. return on capital. Once again, the financial obligations on the port authority were wedded to competition. What happened? In the 1970s there was, as the Minister said, a decline in trade. There were great technological changes and container and bulk vessels provided the major form of traffic. When spelling out those developments, the Minister failed to understand the full consequences and effect on our British ports policy. Those developments did not affect all ports equally. Ports were affected in different ways.
London and Humberside were affected by the developments in bulk grain. Huge ships were concentrated in Europe and grain began to be transhipped from Rotterdam, Antwerp, and so on, to our ports, thus creating a major problem in our port development. Why did they choose Europe? Touche Ross showed that costs in European ports were considerably lower than here. We force our ports to carry charges that are greater than those carried by our Continental competitors, such as Rotterdam and Antwerp. Other hon. Members have detailed the low interest rates, and so on.
I have spent most of today in Dover, looking at the port and the problems of road construction. I spoke to the port authority and discovered that £6 million of its new £20 million investment will be spent on providing customs facilities. Those facilities are not paid in Europe. Port authorities in Europe raise their capital via the rents and leases of their users. High interest rates will have to be paid by the Dover authority. Touche Ross reported in 1972, and I have given the current example of Dover. We penalise our ports. As a result, our ports are disadvantaged.
When looking through my files, I found a speech made by John Lunch, managing director of the Port of London Authority, in 1974. He warned then that
It is well known that Continental ports have many of their costs borne by local or central government and provide special inducements to industry in the form of cheap land, low interest rates etc., since the main objective is to attract basic industry to seed economic growth. In contrast the financial policies for Britain's ports are probably at the extreme of world practice. We require our ports to bear all the costs and to charge the customer accordingly. Hence British ports always appear to the user to be much more expensive than Continental ports.
That is the subsidy argument. He continued to discuss British ports and said that if we allowed that practice to continue, transhipping would make Britain a feeder port rather than a major port. That is exactly what happened.
It is interesting that Mr. Lunch made a point that I would also make about nationalised industries. He said that if we looked at our ports we would see that it was not the type of port that determined whether it was a successful example. Some nationalised ports made a profit. Some local authorities make a loss, some trust boards make a profit and some make a loss. The type of ownership does not determine that. Mr. Lunch said:
All the ports I have described"—
Antwerp, Rotterdam and Dunkirk—
are of course in national or municipal ownership. I mention this to avoid any political distraction in this paper. It is organisation of ports that matters—irrespective of ownership.
I add that it is not only ownership but the geographical situation that affects the development of a port. Trade has changed in a major way.
Transhipment of trade had a major effect on our ports, because it meant that smaller ships were carrying cargoes to this country. Of course, they could be dealt with by smaller ports. We started to see the diversion of traffic.
The ship owner has a mobile asset. We found that when London was blackmailed on the question whether meat boats should go to Southampton. All the port authorities vied with each other for the traffic. That was one of the grave problems in our port development. Competition has been a major factor.
The Minister's mistake is to assume that all ports can compete equally. It is just not true, and it flies in the face of the evidence in all the reports that we have received since the Rochdale inquiry. The Minister does not have to take my word for it. Any port operator will confirm it.
There has been a decline in traffic, but some ports benefited while others faced a major decline, for a number of reasons. In Humberside we lost 1 million tons of traffic in grain and timber, and so on, which bypassed Hull and went to the small wharves. The reason was that the price was considerably cheaper. Once again, the House does not have to take my word. The National Ports Council, under Lord Aldington, whom the Tory Government appointed, analysed the facts in 1972 and found that the major expansion was in the small scheme ports, the traffic in which expanded by about 80 per cent. between 1966 and 1971, compared with an expansion of only 23 per cent. in the large scheme ports.
What happened in Hull was repeated in the Port of London. Traffic went to the small wharves, where we had the problem of registered, as against non-registered, labour. We can see how traffic diverted to the Medway and other parts of the South-East. There are cost difficulties for a port at that end of an estuary.
The point is that the community spent millions of pounds to provide container cranes and big conventional ships. The traffic that was diverted represented much of the bread-and-butter earnings of the ports.
The National Ports Council report in 1972 made clear why it was cheaper to go to the smaller ports—wages were considerably lower and benefits and holidays were considerably less. However, that was

not the major factor. The main factor was the high capital charges that major ports had developed in the decade after Rochdale, when they were encouraged to make massive investments.
The NPC report said that the proportion of debt to capital employed in the larger ports was 75 per cent. In the smaller scheme ports with which comparisons were made it was as low as 26 per cent. That made a big difference in getting the money back in charges at the dock. The major ports were at a great disadvantage. Apart from the trade and technological developments being against them, the capital debt structure that we had imposed on the port authorities was also of considerable consequence.
This is exactly the argument of the Port of London Authority. All these problems came home with a vengeance to the port of London, which was at the end of an estuary. There are all the costs of estuarial development. The port may have had them as costs or it may have made a profit, but the reality is that the ship owner had to pay to come up the estuary before he went into the dock. Therefore, the port could not compete with Medway, Felixstowe and the others that have a cost advantage and can then ask for investment to be sanctioned by the National Ports Council and secure an agreement with overseas traders to come to their ports.
What happens to the ports in which the community has invested hundreds if not thousands of millions of pounds of public money? Whatever the answer, the authority is left with a debt that is not totally of its making. In some cases it comes about because of circumstances outside its control. Sometimes there is an argument about labour practices, but it is not the sole problem. That is one of the grave weaknesses of the analysis that we have received tonight in connection with the Bill.
The authority has lived with crisis for a decade. It has lived on its reserves of £53 million since 1953. As we found in 1978, it is in crisis, the crisis now being bankruptcy. Without that money, it would have been insolvent. That was the only reason for any Government intervention. Was the authority to be allowed to be insolvent because of the commercial market—the dictates of competition?


That was the issue that the Labour Government faced, and they said that they would provide the money. The present Government also faced that issue, whether or not they inherited it. They could have backed away from it if they had wished.
I accept that it was not an easy decision, but the Government inherited the responsibility to bring the Bill before the House. The crisis is considerable. It will not go away. We shall live with it for many years, as the five-year strategy report clearly shows. The previous Government made clear, despite the fact that the authority wanted to close the upper docks, that a condition of giving the money was that they must be retained. So it is not exactly the same kind of inherited commitment.
The Minister indicated that, as we on the Opposition Benches believe and I think the authority believes, there must be a financial reconstruction for the authority. There is no argument about that if it is to return to viability. The Minister prayed in aid the Price Waterhouse report. Unfortunately, having been in Dover today I was not able to read all of it, but I have read parts. I was referred to the section on capital reconstruction. The Minister rightly pointed out that perhaps one should wait to determine the labour practices before any consideration of financial reconstruction. But implicit in that remark is the recognition that, to quote from the report,
In due course, there may be a case for a limited reconstruction based partly on bringing liabilities and assets into balance and by reference to profitability and cash flow objectives.
Price Waterhouse recognised that there would have to be a financial reconstruction. Does the Minister accept that possibility in principle? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer. If the Minister accepts that that is a possibility, given satisfaction on all the labour practices, which is what he said he wanted to achieve, he accepts that he will intervene in a financial reconstruction. It cannot be achieved without Government agreement and a Bill. In those circumstances, it will be another intervention on behalf of the authority.
The Minister will have to decide whether that is to be a matter of policy or simply an intervention. The hon.

Member for Wavertree and other hon. Members from Merseyside will again be asking what the difference is between the two ports.
We say that the policy for all ports should be consistent. Ports policy should not be determined by intervention when an individual port goes bankrupt.
It is crazy to believe in competition and non-intervention as a policy. It becomes increasingly evident from Government statements that that is their only policy. Doubtless the Parliamentary Secretary will reiterate that.
Our major concern is that the Minister believes that the emphasis should be on further manpower reductions to solve the problem. If the closure of the upper docks is to be justified by manpower considerations, the same must apply to the Royal docks.
On 8 May 1978, the right hon. Gentleman asked the then Secretary of State:
Do the Government accept the view of the chairman of the PLA that over the coming months the Port of London will have to be slimmed down substantially, but that if that is done there is no reason why the port, based on Tilbury, should not prosper?"— [Official Report, 8 May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 772.]
Is that the right hon. Gentleman's view now? Does he believe that the Royal docks have to close and that the Port of London Authority should concentrate on Tilbury? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make that clear.
If the dockers are co-operating with the Government, it is in the belief that the Royal docks will be maintained. Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe, as he and Sir John Cuckney believed in May 1978, that the Royal docks have to close in order for the PLA to be viable? I do not believe that he will get co-operation from the industry for such a proposal, which will have a major effect on London development.
We support the Bill but deplore the fact that there is no condition as we laid down regarding the upper docks. We warn the Government that it is a mistake to believe that more redundancies will achieve viability, which appears to be their policy. The five-year report and Price Waterhouse demonstrate that that is not so. Ideological belief in competition also will not solve the problems. The Government are in danger of returning to the bitter dock wars of the 1970s, which


damaged all and did little for port development.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and other hon. Members that it has been an extremely informative debate, which covered a wide area. Practically every hon. Member who has spoken has promised—I almost said threatened—to pursue his detailed points further in Committee.

Sir Graham Page: I trust that we shall not have a replay, such as Arsenal and Liverpool will have to have after tonight.

Mr. Clarke: It is appropriate that the Liverpool v. London conflict should take place on the football field tonight. There have been times when a Liverpool v. Arsenal match has practically been played on the Floor of this House. I am not sure whether the Government are referee or victim. I trust that we shall not replay this debate for too long.
I shall have to reserve some matters for Committee, not least because I have less time now than several hon. Members took in the debate. The debate ranged widely. We covered the history of ports policy and the whole basis of regional policy in the North-West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen) went on to deal with discrimination against Liverpool's ports, as he saw it. I shall confine myself to answering specific points about the Port of London Authority and explaining the basis of the Government's policy in the Bill towards that port. I shall also try to deal with the points made by hon. Members from the North-West about how the Government reconcile that policy with their treatment of Merseyside and other ports in the country.
The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to seek to enable the Port of London Authority to continue to deal with the dramatic change that has been taking place in the ports industry in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was quite right and was not exaggerating in any way the extent of the change that has taken place in cargo handling generally throughout

the docks industry in this country. The so-called container revolution has had a dramatic effect on dock practices, particularly in some of the larger traditional ports. London, as the largest of our traditional ports, has had to accept change on a massive scale. No one throughout the debate—including my right hon. Friend and myself—has underestimated the impact of these changes in cargo handling on the docks industry, and the consequent effects on employment for the communities themselves.
We pay tribute to what has been achieved in both London and Liverpool by way of dramatic reductions in the total labour force which were inevitable in the face of technological change. A considerable degree of co-operation and resourcefulness has been shown in accommodating the change. Unfortunately, as we see from the difficulties which these ports and some others still face, we still have to accommodate change if we are to deal with these problems successfully.
I was asked what aim was being set by the Government for the PLA and those involved with it, as indicated by the contents of the Bill. The aim set for the PLA is to cope with its major problems and to return to profitability by 1983. That is the target set for itself by the PLA in its strategic plan. It is the Government's opinion—I understand that it is also the authority's opinion—that that is a realistic target, although no one denies that it will be a very difficult target to achieve. But it is one that the management and work force of the PLA have to face, because that is the financial climate within which they have to operate and that is the target that they have to set themselves if they are to give long-term security to the port by putting it back on to a competitive and financially sound footing.
The Bill sets out the tight financial limits within which the authority will operate and it offers assistance in reaching those limits in one specific area only —that is, in helping with the considerable costs of reductions in manpower that will be involved in getting to that target and in assisting the port to trade during the period that has to go by before it can get its manpower down to the necessary level.
There has been a great deal of comment about the fact that the Bill is


narrowly confined to the reductions in manpower and the severance costs. No one is pretending that that is the only problem facing the Port of London. There are other problems involved, not least its geographical situation, the closed docks in particular being a considerable way up the estuary. But there is a world decline in shipping trade, and several other problems have been touched on in the debate. Nevertheless, there is no getting away from the fact—even when we touch on the other factors—that the nub of the problem in the Port of London is that it continues to have excess capacity for any trade that it is likely to attract, and that in particular it has excess manpower and working practices which weaken its competitive position.
There is no way in which we can avoid the fact that the nub of the issue is the continuing need for severance of manpower in order to get down to a labour force which is able to be gainfully and efficiently employed on the trade that will come into the port and to those parts of the port that can trade successfully. That factor is the one identified by this Government and by the previous Government as the one where the Port of London Authority needed financial assistance.
Labour Members have tried, for understandable reasons—I can appreciate them, because most of them represent Port of London Authority areas or dock areas—to distinguish between our aims in the Bill, with the concentration on severance costs, and the aims of the previous Government. They have tried to claim that the inherited obligation, as my right hon. Friend described it, has been changed by this Government and that we have introduced as a new element the concentration on severance costs.
I remind the House of the statement of the Secretary of State for Transport in the previous Labour Government, when he began this policy. In reply to a question by the then hon. Member for Hornchurch—Mr. Williams—he informed the House, as he had already informed the Port of London Authority, that the Government were
prepared to provide financial assistance towards severance costs for registered dock workers and stair, on condition that the Authority sets in hand urgent measures, in cooperation with its trade unions, to secure the

most rapid possible rundown of surplus manpower".
That was the basis of the financial assistance.
The Secretary of State said:
Up to £35 million in grants will be made available towards severance costs as they arise, together with any necessary backing for further borrowing for the financing of the undertaking while manpower reductions are being achieved, up to £10 million. I have requested the Port of London Authority to produce a detailed costed plan as the basis for Government financial assistance, after further discussion with the trade unions, designed to establish the specific targets of manpower reductions. No grant assistance will be provided until this plan has been submitted.
The underlying theme of the financial commitment by the previous Secretary of State was that he accepted that he had to intervene to achieve manpower reductions. He also mentioned the closure of the Royal docks on the understanding—not a condition—that no steps were taken towards their closure. That was not a permanent guarantee. Active measures were being proposed by the PLA to close the Royals.
The then Secretary of State said:
Both the Authority and the unions are being told that I will review the position at intervals and monitor improvements in performance to ensure that progress justifies continuing in this way. The provision of grant assistance will be contingent upon results."—[Official Report, 31 July 1978; Vol. 955, c. 169–70.]

Mr. Prescott: I have no doubt that that grant was for manpower reductions. Whether the Royals should close was not an issue. Mr. Cuckney made clear that his strategy was that the Royals should close. Mr. Cuckney even considered resignation. He had to maintain the continued operation of the Royals. I thought that that was common knowledge.

Mr. Clarke: That was not the underlying basis of the financial commitment, nor was there any guarantee. It was clearly said that although the proposed closure of the Royals was postponed, the matter would have to be reviewed according to progress. That happened just before an election. Since then the Royals have not closed. No one insists that they should. The present management has closed the India and Millwall docks because of unsatisfactory performance and because of the costs of a strike. The Royals remain open, but their future is tied up with the future of the PLA. It


depends upon the performance of management and workers. We are dealing with financial provision for severance.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) asked me to make clear to what extent we are continuing a previous commitment and how much of the previous Secretary of State's money had already gone. That was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page). The previous Government spent most of the money. They did so on the Estimates and on the authority of the Appropriation Act, having undertaken to Parliament, in a footnote that few noticed, that they would legislate in due course to give themselves full authority to spend money that they had already spent. That is a proper procedure, but much of the money has already been spent.
I have been asked how much is committed. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) asked how far the commitment to make grants for severance extended. He asked whether it was proposed to limit the commitment to the severance that would arise from the closure of West India and Millwall docks. It is not. The commitment in the Bill covers the whole period of reduction in labour force that is necessary to achieve the target of financial soundness by 1983.
The total amount of money for reverence payments remains at £35 million, as envisaged by the previous Secretary of State, divided between severance payments for staff and repayments to the dock labour board for payments under the dock labour scheme. We have increased that sum by £5 million to allow for inflation. Of that £40 million total, £19 million has been paid—£11·4 million to registered dock workers and £7·6 million to staff.
The Bill gives backing to two separate commercial loans, totalling £25 million, of which £23 million has been taken up by the PLA. The Government have offered backing for an overdraft facility, should the PLA require it, of £5 million. That has not yet been taken up. Therefore, £47 million of the £70 million has already been committed. It is a commitment that we have inherited. We envisage that the remainder, within the £70 million limit, should enable the

management and the men of the PLA, as long as they successfully tackle the task that faces them, to return to profitability by 1983.
The Bill commits the Government to a figure that, in our opinion—supported by the Price Waterhouse report and the other information before the House—is the minimum required by the PLA to tackle its problems and move towards profitability.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the point that has been made from the Back Benches is that, irrespective of any difference between the Front Benches, money itself is not enough? The money will help and may be fundamental. That is what the Government can give. However, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us from the area believe that there must be some further inquiry and consideration of the practices of both labour and management so that that money will be effective? That is the burden of at least some of our speeches. Will he say whether he agrees with that and what he will do to further that aim?

Mr. Clarke: I shall deal with the Select Committee point in due course. I agree that money alone will not be enough. What is required is decisions by the management and the work force of the PLA to reorganise the business of the port to achieve financial viability. That involves decisions on the sort of traffic that it will attract, how to attract it, manning levels, working practices and the other problems that the PLA has to tackle. All that the Government are setting out are the financial climate within which it will have to operate and the Government's commitment to the cost of the severance payments, which we inherited as an obligation from our predecessors and which the PLA cannot finance out of its own resources.
We are committed to severance costs only. I shall return later to the points raised by my hon. Friends from Merseyside. The Government are anxious to make it clear that we are concerned only with the cost of severance payments plus the necessary loans to keep the PLA trading during the period in which it must reduce its labour force. There can be no question of turning that commitment into a general operating subsidy for this port, or for any other, for the perfectly


natural reason that as soon as one admits the policy of operating subsidies to a certain port there is no reason why competing ports should not come along and say "We have a case for an operating subsidy that is every bit as good as that of London."
I wish to deal with the claim made by the PLA-based Members that it would be right to extend that commitment to what I would describe as a more general operating subsidy. They claimed that the PLA was entitled to a capital reconstruction. I refer hon. Members to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said when he opened the debate, to illustrate that the Government and Price Waterhouse have reached the conclusion that the case for capital reconstruction is not valid.
When I talk of a port returning to profitability and a sound financial basis, I include in that the need for it to service its capital debt, just as any other business does. To move to a general proposition whereby one claims that when a business is in serious difficulties it is entitled to write off its accumulated capital debt by a so-called capital reconstruction is very near to saying that there is a case for a continuing subsidy for that port vis-a-vis its competitors, most of whom will not be relieved of the obligation to service their capital and will continue to carry their capital debt.
I have been asked to deal with the question of the general subsidy that it is said is enjoyed by foreign ports, particularly those in Western Europe. That claim is then used to justify saying that there should be a continuing subsidy to London and, presumably, to other ports because, it is said, that is the Continental practice and our ports cannot compete with them.
The Touche Ross report has been referred to a number of times as the basis for this argument. It was published in 1974 and compared four subsidised Continental ports with three unsubsidised United Kingdom ports. It certainly concluded then that the subsidy enabled the Continental ports to set their dues considerably below the levels that would prevail if they operated on a commercial basis.
However, although Continental ports compete with each other, there is no real competition between them and United

Kingdom ports. Hon. Members, particularly from the Labour side, have talked about the transhipment trade and have said that that is where the competition arises. However, a recent National Ports Council survey showed that transshipment amounted to only 7 per cent. of United Kingdom deep-sea imports in 1978 and about 5 per cent. of deep-sea exports. In any case, transhipped goods still have to enter or leave the United Kingdom through a port. That was the point that I tried to make in my letter to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It sounds a trite remark to make, but it is significant.
The basis upon which the Continental European ports are competing with each other is that they are trying to attract trade into Continental Europe through their respective countries. If by some form of subsidy one can get traffic to go in through, for example, Hamburg, one stops it going in through a Dutch port such as Rotterdam. French, German and Dutch ports seem to have a habit of trying to attract traffic by way of subsidy, leading to international competition of what I would regard as a fairly undesirable kind.
However, all goods come into Britain by way of some port, for the elementary reason that we are an island. Competition in subsidy in this country will therefore be only between different British ports and will affect only the way in which the goods come in and the ports through which they enter. There is no basis for our going into some system whereby we encourage our ports to attract traffic to each other on the basis of subsidies that they can win from Government. The competition faced by the Port of London Authority comes from other United Kingdom ports, such as Felixstowe and the Medway ports, and it is Government policy that ports in this country should compete freely with each other on the basis of price and service without Government subsidy.
The Touche Ross report was concerned with port dues and not with cargo handling charges, which are a much more significant part of port costs, so the kind of comparisons made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) are a great simplification of the position. It is in cargo handling costs, on which there is no evidence that the Continental ports go


in for any degree of subsidy, that the biggest differences arise between London and many of its competitors. It is in overmanning and working practices that London could do most to improve its competitive position vis-a-vis other ports with which it is undoubtedly in contention at the moment.
That takes me on to the question how we relate this to the practice towards other ports. Merseyside has been concentrated on because it is the other large traditional port that has problems involving the seeking of manpower reductions, although its problems are not on the same scale as the problems of the PLA. I have already sought to emphasise that the assistance to the PLA is for a period to 1983. It is related only to the substantial problems of manpower severance that it faces. That commitment was inherited by us from the previous Labour Government, and most of the money involved had already been committed by them before today.
We shall not seek a generalised subsidy for other ports, as my right hon. Friend made clear when he had to make the difficult decision about the port of Preston. We received an application for a further grant, but the point had to be made that we could not justify further grants to it.
We have made clear that in the Government's opinion there is no case for a grant to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company because, I am glad to say, we feel that that company is in a position in which it does not and should not need such a grant. By taking the necessary steps it can put its house in order, and it can put itself in a position in which it can finance the necessary severance costs from its revenue.
I understand why my right hon. and hon. Friends feel strongly that Mersey is in some way being discriminated against. I have heard it said before that Merseyside is somehow being singled out for unfavourable treatment, but, with respect, I do not believe that my right right hon. and hon. Friends are able to support that contention. I know how strongly it is felt by some of their constituents.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to competition with State-subsidised ports, and, among others, he cited Southampton. With great

respect, the British Transport Docks Board is not subsidised in that way. It pays a fully commercial rate on its loans. It is in fact repaying debt early from revenue, because of the way in which it is managing its business. In any event, although it is at present a successful State-owned organisation, we are proposing to bring forward proposals that will introduce a substantial amount of private capital into that board. On all counts, there is no quesion of a State-subsidised competitor.
There has been no general practice on Merseyside of the Government accepting a duty to compensate authorities for any sort of labour severance, although there have been occasions when, as a national measure, grants have been made to the National Dock Labour Board to support the severance of registered dock labourers.
In 1972, £30·5 million was devoted for that purpose to a national severance scheme in which Mersey was a participant and from which it was a beneficiary. But Mersey, because of its particular unfortunate history, has also had other assistance. Following its bankruptcy in 1970, Mersey's capital debt was written down in 1972 by 60 per cent. We are in the perverse situation where Mersey has had capital reconstruction but is not being helped with severance, and where London has not obtained capital reconstruction but is being helped with severance. I am in no way critical of Members from Merseyside who ask for money for severance or of Members from London who ask for capital reconstruction. Many other ports in Britain actually pay the cost of their severance out of their earnings from revenue.
We believe that the interest of the user is best served by an arrangement whereby the docks compete with each other by way of service and efficiency to get the traffic that they need in order to support themselves from their own revenues.

Mr. David Alton: Nearly an hour ago, the point was made that the basic problem of Merseyside is that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is making a major trading loss and that £5 million of that loss is accounted for by severance pay over the last year. About 500 people in the dock have become unemployed in the first three months of this year. It seems to me


and to other Merseyside Members that unless some assistance is given in an area where the unemployment is twice the national average, more dock workers will become unemployed. We cannot walk away from that. I understand from what the Minister said earlier that he might be prepared to consider an application from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company if it asked for assistance, and yet he has just said that he is not prepared to do so.

Mr. Clarke: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman was not here when my right hon. Friend opened the debate. My right hon. Friend dealt with the present position on Mersey, including the history of relationships between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Department of Transport over the last few months. I am glad to say that at the present time, with the assistance of the National Ports Council, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is reviewing its position and is searching for ways, which we believe can be found, of getting that port back to profitability and a financially more secure position. There is no basis, as has at present been established to us, for a grant for severance or for any other purpose.
As someone said earlier, there is no reason for a background of complete defeatism and gloom about either of these ports. Indeed, it is necessary for us to guard against the constant temptation to find excuses for the present difficulties of these ports and to run away from the main problems, which are unfortunate but necessary, arising out of technological change, which has given rise to overmanning and excess capacity.
It is also no use pretending that somehow these ports cannot be brought back to profitability and a sounder financial basis. There is every reason to believe that both can.

Mr. Ogden: rose—

Mr. Clarke: We are running out of time, and I have given way at least eight or nine times. I shall take up further points in Committee, but I suggest that it would not be right to have a Select Committee or any further inqury of the kind sought by the hon. Members for New-ham, South and for Thurrock.
I do not think that the Port of London Authority needs many more inquiries and studies. It has had three Price Waterhouse reports. I do not think that at this stage it would help for an inquiry to take place which would seek deeply to involve this House or anyone else in management decisions, which must be taken by the responsible management of the PLA, or even to involve us in decisions which must be taken as a result of negotiations between the management and the trade unions with regard to manning levels, working practices and so on.
In the end, it is the responsibility of those in the port to respond to the challenges which face them in order to get the port back to profitability by 1983. The kind of decisions which have recently been taken by the management, in the case of the West India and Millwall docks closure, and the response of the labour force to that, as evidenced by the encouraging decision of the labour force last week, shows that they are capable of responding to what is needed. As a result of the help given by the Bill, I believe that they could return to profitability. That is the target that the PLA must set itself.
During the debate hon. Members asked what would happen if the Bill proved inadequate, if the financial limit was not enough or if the PLA failed to achieve its target. Let there be no doubt. The Government expect the management and everyone concerned with the PLA to take the necessary steps to keep within these financial limits. In our opinion, there is no good reason why they cannot do so, and the decisive steps that they have already taken are a good indication that they are capable of doing so.
With regard to the docks industry as a whole, we shall not slip into a position of general subsidy for that industry or of preferential treatment of one port against another. That is the background of policy, and the Bill contains the financial limits within which the PLA must work. I am sure that it can be successful. I am sure that everyone hopes that it will be successful in its declared aim of winning a secure future for Tilbury, the two remaining upper docks and for those who work in the PLA, to the great benefit of the community in docklands. The Bill is an essential step in helping it towards that aim, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Newton.]

Committee tomorrow.

PORT OF LONDON (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide financial assistance for and in connection with measures taken by the Port of London Authority to restore the profitability of their undertaking by reducing the number of persons employed by them, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by any Minister—

(i) for giving financial assistance to the Authority for such measures and for the carrying on of their undertaking while such measures are being taken, and
(ii) for reimbursing the National Dock Labour Board for any payments made by them to dock workers who become entitled to compensation from the Board in consequence of measures for which financial assistance is provided under that Act and
(b) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. Eric Ogden: There is one point about which I should like to ask the Minister, who was not able to give way for obvious and understandable reasons during his remarks. The hon. Gentleman and the Government are falling into possibly the worst of all situations. When there was a National Ports Council and money could be provided for severance for reductions in this narrow area to which the Bill is applied fairly across the country, at least there was a fair system nationally. No one complained that by subsidising severance in one area we were discriminating against another. By choosing the Port of London, which is in need, other areas are automatically disadvantaged. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at this matter between now and Committee.
It is no use arguing the second point made by the Minister—that the previous Labour Government's Bill was aimed exclusively at redundancies or severances.

That was one of the principal purposes of the Labour Government's Bill, but there were many other purposes for which the Bill was proposed to reduce the need for redundancies.
I ask the Minister to look at those two points and in Committee to try to give some clear explanation of the difference between redundancy payments, on the one hand, and severance and early retirement payments, on the other. They are vital to the progress of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): On that point, which is relevant to the money resolution, I have to make it clear that there has not been any national system whereby all severance payments were paid across the board nationally. The National Ports Council still exists and has not been involved in the administration of the dock labour scheme. The National Dock Labour Board administers the dock labour scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has some responsibility for that scheme. It is for that reason that he is cited in the Bill. Normally, the dock labour scheme works on the basis that the payments to registered dock workers are paid and financed out of levies imposed on the ports.
There came a stage in March 1978 when the Port of London Authority was incurring liabilities to registered dock workers which exceeded its capacity to finance out of its own levy. It was on that basis that the sum to which I referred—£11½ million—was paid by the Government as a grant to the National Dock Labour Board to reimburse it for the costs of paying to London sums not covered by levy from London.
The position now is that the NDLB expects that the rate of severance of registered dock workers—it has to be voluntary severance—will not exceed the capacity of London to finance out of levy. Therefore, the money that is not taken up now is likely to be used by the Port of London Authority for severance payments towards the other staff—the non-registered dock workers.
We can go into that point in Committee, but that is the background to it. However, it supports what I said


before. There is no precedent for a generalised continuing system of subsidy towards all redundancy payments in the docks industry. Certainly, for the reasons that I gave, the Government have no intention of slipping into such an obligation towards all docks. We believe that they are all capable of organising their business so that they can cover these costs out of revenue that they earn.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend saying that the intervention in London is solely because of the likelihood of bankruptcy if there were no Government intervention? If so, if the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company were to go into bankruptcy, would he intervene on that basis?

Mr. Clarke: If I may treat that as an intervention, I am definitely not saying that. In our opinion, there is no reason why the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company should contemplate bankruptcy. We hope and expect that, as a result of the work going on by that company and the National Ports

Council, it will be able to produce a plan which will get it back to a sound financial footing in the very near future.
The basis for assistance to London is on quite different grounds. It is not bailing it out from bankruptcy. It is taking over what is left of this commitment to deal with the short-term problem of severance payments.
With respect, it is most unfortunate when hon. Members from London and Liverpool—I do not say this too critically —keep reverting to the possibility of what happens if their port goes bankrupt. I hope that they do not allow that approach to life to affect the thinking of too many of their constituents who are concerned with the docks. Other ports do not go bankrupt and there is no reason why London or Liverpool should go bankrupt. They face difficult and dramatic changes to which they must adjust. The Government expect them to adjust to these changes and have every confidence that both ports are quite capable of returning to profitability.

Question put and agreed to.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): We move now to the two orders on aircraft and shipbuilding. I understand that it would be more to the convenience of the House if they were taken separately.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
The redundancy payments scheme for shipbuilding workers to which this order relates derives its authority from the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978. One of the provisions of that Act was to place an upper limit of £100 on the previous earnings to be taken into account when calculating the redundancy payments to be made. The effect of the upper limit is that those who earned less than the limit have their benefits calculated on the basis of their actual earnings but those who earned more than the upper limit have their benefits based upon that limit.
In July last, the Government introduced an amending order extending the life of the scheme for two years, to the end of July 1981, and at the same time increased the upper limit to £110. The draft order increases the upper limit still further, to the sum of £120, effective as from 1 February last. This is, therefore, a minor but useful improvement in the existing scheme, bringing it into line with an increase in the upper limit recently made to the general redundancy scheme under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and has already received approval in another place.
I trust, therefore, that the House will regard the draft order as being uncontroversial and allow the improvement to be made. However, as the order relates solely to Harland and Wolff, perhaps it might be appropriate for me to make a comment on the situation there. This shipyard currently has a work force of 7,100. To date approximately 1,440 Harland and Wolff workers have benefited from the redundancy payments scheme.

The total cost has been approximately £3·5 million, the average lump sum payment being about £1,505, which is similar to that for the workers of British Shipbuilders.
Although 470 more workers have been declared redundant, to take effect in April-May, it is not possible to forecast the future effects of the scheme because everything depends upon the future orders that the shipyard is able to obtain. However, I can advise the House that the cost of the changes proposed in the order will be minimal, since few employees in Harland and Wolff have earnings approaching the upper limit.
There are at present six ships in the yard, one of which is to be handed over this week. The last of the remaining five is due for completion by late 1981. Thus, serious shortages of work for steel workers are bound to develop before very long if no new order is speedily obtained. The tragedy is that, despite large capital investment by the Government following a modernisation scheme initiated in 1973, which has made Harland and Wolff one of the most modern and capital-intensive yards in Europe, no new orders have been won by the yard since July 1979.
Part of the problem is that there has been little demand in the world for large ships for the repetitive production of which Harland and Wolff facilities were designed. Also, the capacity to build these large ships cheaply in other parts of the world has increased. Another and most significant contributory factor in Harland and Wolff's current problems is the missing of production targets. In consequence, losses in 1978 were £25·5 million, and the Government committed a further funding of £22 million for 1979–80.
That could not be allowed to drift on indefinitely, so, on 23 July last, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Harland and Wolff announced that he was undertaking a fundamental review of the current position and prospects of the company, and that is continuing. Meanwhile, the Government have made it clear that funds will be provided to enable the company to pursue its operations until decisions are taken in the light of this review.
The painful truth is that unless Harland and Wolff can satisfy potential customers that it can deliver goods when


the customers want them, it will not have any customers. Customers will simply take their money elsewhere. This is a matter entirely for management and workers to resolve for themselves. No amount of Government funding will do it for them. Essentially, Harland and Wolff stands or falls on its own merits in a highly competitive world.
Having said that, the company is actively seeking orders wherever they can be found and the Government are doing everything within their competence to assist. One obvious way is the placing of orders for naval vessels. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has discussed this with the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence and I can confirm that Harland and Wolff is on the tender list for Royal Fleet auxiliaries and similar vessels. The position now is that Harland and Wolff is on an equal footing with the rest of the British shipbuilding industry for orders for these vessels. The Ministry of Defence has been made fully aware of the facilities available at Harland and Wolff.
The Government, as announced last November, have obtained EEC approval for a fund of up to£25 million for subsidies on new orders over a two-year period from July 1979. The conditions applying to the use of this fund will be the same as those for the intervention fund for Great Britain. Hence, once again this Government assistance is wholly dependent upon Harland and Wolff securing new orders which will attract these subsidies.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry will, when introducing the next order, speak of the general world prospects and the demand for new ships. I shall, therefore, leave that broader aspect to him. However, whatever he says will be relevant to the position of Harland and Wolff in seeking to secure for itself part of that demand. Within that context, the future of Harland and Wolff will depend upon the review to which I have already referred, and that, in turn, will depend upon the confidence that the company can instil in potential customers.
Naturally, when the review is concluded the House will be given an opportunity to discuss its findings fully. Meanwhile, adequate provision has to be made for

those who may, during the present period of difficulty, find themselves redundant. I therefore trust that the House will agree to implement the modest improvement proposed in the redundancy payment scheme, and I accordingly commend the order to the House.

Mr. Brynmor John: There are two distinct features in the Minister's remarks. The first is the future of Harland and Wolff. That depends generally upon shipbuilding prospects in the United Kingdom. The second is the detail of the scheme.
It is no exaggeration to say that we are debating Harland and Wolff's future and continued existence. When the issue was introduced in another place, a rather more optimistic view was taken of world shipping. The general consensus of a BBC broadcast that I heard this week was that there is an increase in world shipping orders. However, that is the world position. Unless it works its way into the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry generally, and especially into the Northern Ireland sector, any upturn in the market may come far too late to save the yard, because the work force will be dispersed. The Government have recognised that once a work force has been dispersed it is not so easily brought together again.
The Minister referred to the review that was taking place. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when we debated the appropriations for Northern Ireland on 13 March 1980 the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland parried many questions with the information that the Government
are still in the course of preparing the thorough review that we undertook to complete by the end of the month."—[Official Report, 13 March 1980; Vol. 980, col. 1717.]
It is now 16 April and there is no sign of the report. When we are talking of missed production targets, that criticism can be levelled as much at the Government as at the Harland and Wolff work force. I know that the Under-Secretary of State referred to the illness of an official, but that is not a sufficient excuse. I am not making merely an academic point. A number of decisions depend on the completion of the thorough review. One of the decisions is the future funding of the yard. The management cannot possibly make sen-


sible decisions until it knows what view the Government take about the yard's long-term future. That is something that we need to know as quickly as possible. We also need to know when the review will be published. When may we now expect it? It has been so long delayed. Will it be published before the end of the month, before the end of the summer, or when?
With the passage of time, emloyment prospects are bleaker. The further redundancy of which the Minister spoke is but the first schedule for the year. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said during the course of the Northern Ireland (Appropriation) debate that in week 38, in September, all steel work in the yard will have been exhausted. I asked the Government on that occasion, a month ago, for permission for the Harland and Wolff management to go ahead with the ordering of the steel so that if orders were obtained there would be no hiatus between the running out of the previous steel work and the commencement of new work. No answer was forthcoming on that occasion, and inevitably there will be further redundancy in September unless the Government make a decision pretty quickly.
The second way in which the position has changed since we debated it a month ago is that the Government have already announced a further cut of £62 million in public expenditure in their industrial support. They say that £40 million of that is for subsidised electricity for industrial use. However, the £22 million is not so easily explicable. Where will that cut fall? Is it to mean that the Government are to be less able and less willing to support Harland and Wolff in future than in the past? We need more specific answers than were given a month ago.
I, too, have had a reply from the Ministry of Defence about the Royal Fleet auxiliaries. If we assume that Harland and Wolff is on the tendering list, how many auxiliaries will be built or serviced for the Royal Navy during the coming year? When may Harland and Wolff expect a decision on whether it has a share of that? That is crucial. It is comforting to know that it is being given an opportunity to tender, but if it does not know whether it has won that tender the opportunity will be of little consolation to the management.
The Minister placed great stress on the ability of Harland and Wolff's management to obtain orders. I understand that an order for a bulk carrier was being discussed with the British Steel Corporation. There was a question of bridging the finance between the amount that the BSC was prepared to pay and the production costs of Harland and Wolff. A month ago I asked whether the Government were prepared to contemplate bridging that gap. I received no reply. The fall-back position was that a thorough review was in progress. Have the Government reached a decision, or will that order disappear for want of one?
Can the go-ahead now be given for ordering the steel, so that steel workers will not have to be dispersed when unemployment hits them in week 38? The Minister will acknowledge that once a highly trained work force had been dispersed it was not easy to get them together again and to resume production. May we have the go-ahead or some indication that Harland and Wolff will be allowed to order the necessary steel?
The electrical department is highly skilled and essential to the functioning of the yard. A number of small contracts are needed if that department is to be kept together. Are the Government able to announce that contracts are being placed with the yard? I wish to ask some specific questions and I hope that I shall receive specific answers and not bland generalities. The noble Lord in another place was unwarrantably complacent about the prospects and basis for the order. The Minister spoke about the improvement as if it were a concession to the work force. If a man earns more than £120 a week, his redundancy payment will be calculated not on his earnings but on the maximum of £120 a week. The man who earns that sum will find no improvement.
The noble Lord's justification was based on two grounds. The first is that few people in the yard would be affected. The Minister reiterated that point. How many people will be affected? Secondly, however few are affected, an injustice will remain unless the sums are updated to compensate for inflation, or the general movement in wages. In two years, from 1978, the sum has been increased from £100 to £120. That does not compensate for the average rise in wages. Surely, those who used to be outside the scheme


will come into the scheme, because their wages have increased at a greater rate.
I am not prepared to say that the scheme should be opposed. However, the Minister should not pretend that it represents a great concession to the work-people. However it is dressed up, it limits the ability of the higher earnings group to receive proper compensation for redundancy. We want to know whether the Minister is determined to minimise the redundancies that we all fear are coming.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Like many other Northern Ireland Members, I look forward to the day when business such as this can be transacted in a Northern Ireland Parliament, perhaps at an earlier hour or in the afternoon.
The opportunity to speak about redundancies in the shipbuilding industry must be grasped, but we seem to be treading the same ground time and again. Until we receive the report of the review that the Minister referred to, we cannot have as worthwhile a debate as would otherwise be possible.
We should concentrate on the prospect of more redundancies. The Minister will know of the merchants of gloom in Northern Ireland, some of whom predict the closure of the Harland and Wolff yard, and those who are more optimistic but who still talk about another 1,200 redundancies in the near future. Can the Minister give us any indication of the likely number of redundancies in the coming months?
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) referred to the steel work. That is a matter of great concern to shipyard workers and, no doubt, the shipyard management. I reiterate what the hon. Gentleman said and I urge the Minister to give us an answer. We have raised the matter before and we are still waiting for an answer.
Many of us welcome the recent orders for the engine works in Harland and Wolff, but we know that they are only providing a breathing space for that section. The foundry is in the most delicate position. Can the Minister assure us that neither he nor the management at Harland and Wolff envisage the yard without a foundry?
I return to the subject of naval work, which has almost become a hobby-horse of mine. Like the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I have received correspondence from the Under-Secretary assuring me, as if it were some great achievement, that Harland and Wolff was being permitted to tender for supply ships and similar work. What has the Northern Ireland Office achieved in terms of orders for naval contracts? Can the Minister give us an optimistic outlook for the prospects for naval work for Harland and Wolff?
I am particularly interested in the prospects for work on warships. The Secretary of State for Defence said, in a written answer, that Harland and Wolff was not suited for such work, but that is contrary to the messages that I have received from men and management at Harland and Wolff who believe that the yard could easily be made suitable for that work if we had the continuity of work that we hope we could expect. Is the Minister prepared to consider that aspect? He obviously views with concern the future of Harland and Wolff.
We thought that the review would have been completed by now. Perhaps an opportunity could be given, in the Northern Ireland Committee or some other suitable place, for Northern Ireland Members to discuss the review as soon as possible. Many of us, particularly myself, representing the constituency, view with great concern the economic effect on the whole of Northern Ireland. Harland and Wolff represents probably the most important industry in Northern Ireland. I trust that the Government will reflect that importance when they make known the details of the review and that we shall all have an opportunity to discuss them in detail.

12 midnight

Mr. Harold McCusker: Hon. Members from Northern Ireland must welcome and support the order, but they cannot do it with any great enthusiasm or joy, because implicit in what we are doing is the fact that there will be substantially fewer jobs in the Northern Ireland shipbuilding industry next year than there are now.
After what the Minister told us tonight, the prophets of doom in Northern Ireland are more likely to be correct than any


of the optimists. During the past year 1,400 jobs have been lost in the industry, and to judge from what we have been told the immediate prospects are bleak.
How much of that job loss was due to European Economic Community policy? A little over a year ago the Minister's predecessor fought very hard against the dictates of Brussels to avoid reducing the work force on condition that an order was given to the yard. There may well be good reasons why work forces should occasionally be reduced, but I do not believe that one of them should be the insistence of the EEC.
The Minister said that other subsidies might well be available to the yard. Will they be conditional on further reductions? Will those subsidies simply be sops to enable us, over a slightly longer term, to run the yard to oblivion? I hope that the Minister will tell us the implications of that aid.
I can understand why the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) believes it, but it is no longer true that Harland and Wolff is one of the major industries in Northern Ireland—not of the nature that he described.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I said that it was probably the most important.

Mr. McCusker: I doubt whether it is the most important. There are the textile industry, agriculture and many more industries. I should say that at present the aircraft industry was more important than Harland and Wolff.
When one looks at the nature of Harland and Wolff, one must ask "When does it become non-viable?" It certainly is not viable when it has only a few hundred people working there. Is it almost non-viable now? Can it be said that it can support the design staff and the technical services staff required to keep it in existence and to enable it truly to compete for further orders?
The political, social and industrial implications for Northern Ireland of closure are not what they were 20, 10 or five years ago. If Harland and Wolff closed down tomorrow and put 7,000 people in the dole queue, it would be a disaster for the Province, but it would not be earthshaking to the extent that it would have been only a few years ago.
On the basis of what the Minister said, I think that there is a cold wind blowing through the gantries tonight. If steel work is ended by the thirty-eighth week of this year, and there is nothing to bridge the gap, we must be witnessing the final rundown of the yard. We should be foolish to allow the work force or anyone else in Northern Ireland to think differently. There is no way in which one can see past that unless there is bridging work available. We wonder when the stage of non-viability will be reached.
Of course, as the Minister said, the yard cannot be kept in existence without orders. Those orders must be completed within the terms of the contracts. We must all admit that it is highly regrettable that Harland and Wolff has not been able to meet delivery dates on its present orders. I did not miss the point in what that senior executive of British Rail told the firm a few weeks ago when he was at a launching ceremony for one of his vessels.
There is no point in being proud of the quality of ships that we build in Belfast if we deliver them six, nine or 12 months late. Shipbuilders who drive Japanese cars, perhaps for the best of reasons, cannot complain if ship owners in the remainder of Great Britain buy Japanese ships, possibly for the same reasons.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for Harland and Wolff in the previous Government. They made an effort to get work and money for the yard. They did everything that they could to keep it in existence. What has the present Secretary of State done, and what do his colleagues see as their role? Do they believe that they have no role to play in merchant shipping?
Orders from the Royal Navy could be forthcoming. I am told that three warships are due for replacement. Is it too much to ask that one of those orders should go to Belfast? We hear that perhaps there is not the capacity in other yards in Great Britain to handle those orders as speedily as required.
If we are moving towards a crisis in a matter of months, it is important for the Government to adopt the attitude of the previous Government. We may


merely be once again holding out the begging bowl, but the Government should accept their responsibility if it is possible to bridge the gap until Harland and Wolff is perhaps able to benefit from an improvement in the world market. I hope that the Secretary of State will fight tooth and nail to get us our share of any available orders from the Royal Navy.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I should like to follow two points that have been made. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) stated that it was not a great deal of comfort to him to hear that Harland and Wolff was being considered for a Ministry of Defence contract, and I share his lack of elation. He may be a little more comforted to know that between 1971 and 1977 14 Ministry of Defence contracts were placed, and Harland and Wolff was not even invited to tender. At least, the yard is now being asked to involve itself. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We should be thinking not merely in terms of including Harland and Wolff but virtually of guaranteeing a contract, as my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) inferred.
If the situation is as bad as outlined by the official Opposition spokesman, clearly it is incumbent on the Government to pull out every stop to safeguard as many jobs as possible in the short term. We do not ask for copper-bottomed guarantees for ever and a day.
In the Statutory Instruments Committee that dealt with the redundancy order in 1978, and of which I was a member, I tried to make the point that the work force at Harland and Wolff had to play its part. A degree of realism was necessary. A glimmer of realism appeared to be developing among the work force in that and the following year, but I confess that I agree with my hon. Friend that that realism has not been sustained in the way that many of us hoped. The work force has to accept, as we have to accept, that there are consequences if the work rate is not sustained. So we would have to accept that the redundancy order is very necessary, unfortunate as it is.
There is not much point tonight in rehearsing the reasons for the decline in the productivity rate. It is an unfortunate

reality, but there it is. I should like to offer one observation. It has been made again and again in this House when we have debated Northern Ireland shipbuilding. I refer to the fact that middle management was not pruned early enough. Even as late as six months ago, some of the workers at Harland and Wolff told me that some effort must be made to prune the middle management. But no effort was made, and that is possibly a very real contributory factor to the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves this evening.
The main point of the order is to ensure that the redundancy payments somehow keep pace with inflation. That is, of course, a very important consideration. Whether they keep pace with inflation is open to argument. I accept the point made by the spokesman for the official Opposition that it is well nigh impossible to get the younger men back into the industry. Obviously, they will not want to run the risk of being employed in an industry the future of which is not at all certain, but unless we try to keep some of the younger men in the industry there will be no future at all, even should there be a recovery in the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in Great Britain.
For that reason I should like to know what kind of numbers of younger emloyees are being made redundant. The scheme is obviously very complicated. That was made clear in Committee by the Minister who introduced the scheme in 1978 and by the then Opposition spokesman. There is no doubt that if a very large number of older workers are made redundant the amount of money paid will be so large that there must, at the other end of the scale, be a very large number of younger workers made redundant in order to balance the total amount of money available for the order.
If at Harland and Wolff a very large number of older men are made redundant and in order to balance the books, as it were, a very large number of younger employees are made redundant, it will be very unfortunate. Has the Minister any ideas how we can keep some of the younger but nevertheless highly trained men in the industry, should there be a rejuvenation of the shipbuilding industry in the Province?
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh, when he paid tribute to the sterling work of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—a man who, during his time in office, attended assiduously to his duties and tried to keep the yard on the map as far as was humanly possible.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Northern Ireland representatives will not be satisfied with the atmosphere in which the debate is taking place. In the absence of the review body's findings, the debate is taking place in a vacuum. We are not aware of the Government's attitude. I am not happy about the comments made from the Dispatch Box by a succession of Tory Ministers. That is the general feeling among those employed in the Belfast shipyard.
I add my voice to the comments made by other Northern Ireland Members. I wish to ask the Minister some pointed questions. We have heard that Harland and Wolff has been afforded the facility, by great condescension, to tender for Ministry of Defence work. That is not enough. Has the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland argued in the Cabinet that some of the defence work should be given to Northern Ireland? Has he pleaded with the Secretary of State for Defence that some of the defence contracts should go to Northern Ireland because of the shipyard's financial position and because of the disastrous effect on Belfast if the shipyard closed?
Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the discussions that he has had with the trade unions and management at Harland and Wolff about production dates? Is he satisfied that some improvement has taken place? Have any undertakings been given that if defence contracts are gained the work force will do everything possible to co-operate with management to ensure that production targets are met?
It is not good enough to say that Harland and Wolff has been allowed to tender for defence contracts. Has the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland impressed upon his Cabinet colleagues the necessity of directing work to the shipyard in Belfast?

Mr. Rossi: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer some of the

varied and detailed points. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I do not answer them all, because until a short time ago I was not aware that I was to speak in the debate. I thought that the two orders would be taken together. The issues that are not dealt with now will be the subject of correspondence.
A number of hon. Members said that £120 was not sufficient to meet the rate of inflation. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said that we should relate the £120 to the top earnings in the shipyard so as not to disadvantage people. The average earnings at Harland and Wolff are estimated to be between £80 and £90 a week—well short of £120.
The Department of Manpower Services estimates that of the 1,440 former Harland and Wolff workers who have been declared redundant, and who have received redundancy payments, fewer than one dozen were on the upper limit. We are talking of a minute position in terms of the upper limit. The reason for the upper limit is not so much because of the level of average wages at Harland and Wolff but because it follows automatically the general redundancy scheme applicable to the United Kingdom as a whole, which posited £120 as the upper limit. It was felt only right that Northern Ireland should be dealt with on a parity basis. That is why £120 applies to Harland and Wolff, although strictly on the average earnings it is not relevant. I hope that that answers the questions and the misgivings of some hon Members.
Another question raised by a number of hon. Members concerned the review. It is regretted that the Government are not yet in a position to come to the House with a decision on its outcome. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said —and he is well informed on these matters—a key official in the Department of Commerce has been ill for some time, and the review was very much dependent upon his work. It is for that reason that we have not been in a position to come forward with the outcome of the review at as early a date as we would have wished. It is a matter of such serious consequence that I hope right hon. and hon. Members will not expect us to rush our conclusions.
Reference was made to publishing the report. I do not think that that will be


possible. After all, a review of this sort will contain a great deal of information that is commercially confidential. It would be inappropriate to make that information public. Certainly, any decisions that will be taken on the review and the report to Ministers will be brought to the House for debate. I hope that hon. Members will be content to leave the matter there.

Mr. John: The Minister's remarks do not answer my question when we may expect the review to be completed. We can hardly be called impatient if, after eight months of waiting for the review, we ask when it is likely to be available to the Government and when they will announce their conclusions.

Mr. Rossi: I would like to give the hon. Gentleman a date, and I have an expectation. However, all that I feel I can say from the Dispatch Box at this moment, because of the vicissitudes of life, is that it will be as soon as possible. I say that in good faith, and I ask the hon Member to accept that. No doubt when speaking from the Dispatch Box in the past he has been in a similar position and realised the problems that arise.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister's answer of "as soon as possible" is, I appreciate, as much as he can tell us now, but I wonder whether he will at least inform the House about the health of this key official. Has he returned to work and started where he left off? Can the Minister tell us whether someone else has taken over the work? Will he at least give us an idea whether any progress is being made?
The Government are intending not to publish the review but only to tell us of decisions taken on it. It is not possible for them to do a little more than that? Surely there will be some conclusions that will not endanger the secrets of Harland and Wolff or any other industry. I hope that the Minister will give us more facts than merely the bald decisions.

Mr. Rossi: We shall, of course, seek to be as helpful to the House as we possibly can, given the restraint that must be upon us in matters of commercial confidentiality. The key official will, I understand, be absent for a little while longer.
I can tell the House that "as soon as possible" means "soon."

Mr. John: The Minister should perhaps have quit while he was ahead. We were more reassured by "as soon as possible" than we are by his clarification of what that means. His is a Department of State, and it is not good enough that the illness of one civil servant, however eminent or experienced, should hold up indefinitely a report that bears on the livelihoods of 5,000 men, thus making the situation more worrying for them and making the viability of Harland and Wolff weaker with the passage of time. Unless quick decisions are made, however sincere the Government may be in their desire to help Harland and Wolff, they will be less able to do so because the commercial position will have deteriorated.

Mr. Rossi: We must maintain a sense of proportion about this. In this review we are considering the future of Harland and Wolff. That is not a matter that can in any sense be dealt with lightly. It must be dealt with carefully and seriously, and if time is required to reach a proper decision time must be given.
The assurance that the House and the work force at Harland and Wolff have is that the Government are fully committed to keeping the company funded fully so that it can stay in operation until decisions under the review have been made. Therefore, the time lag does not adversely prejudice anyone because the financing is being maintained. Although the hon. Member for Pontypridd has had his fun over the problems that arise for the Government and the Department in carrying out searching inquiries of this kind, we are dealing with the matter seriously and properly. In due course—and that "due course" will be soon, very soon, I believe—the House will have the opportunity of dealing with the whole matter.
I was asked about the position on warships. That is quite a different matter from the question of the auxilliary vessels, to which I was referring. There are problems here. Harland and Wolff has not built a warship since 1969. An entirely new generation of warship has come along. It is believed by the Ministry of Defence that the specialised knowledge for building this new kind


of warship does not exist in Harland and Wolff. Therefore, orders for warships as such cannot be expected to be given to Harland and Wolff.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked two specific questions about other naval vessels. He asked whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had raised the matter with his colleagues in the Cabinet and with what result. I must tell him frankly that I do not know. I am not privy to what takes place in the Cabinet. I know that the matter is one of great concern to my right hon. Friend, and he is most anxious that naval orders should be obtained for Harland and Wolff. I know that he has charged my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to deal with the Ministry of Defence on this matter. In my opening speech I indicated that my noble Friend had seen Lord Strathcona, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, and had made clear the facilities that were available at Harland and Wolff and had made sure that Harland and Wolff would be in the running. I cannot give a copper-bottomed guarantee on a matter of that sort, but it is being pursued vigorously.

Mr. McCusker: I raised the matter of warships. Whilst I accept that technological advance in these matters must accelerate over a 10-year period, I find it difficult to believe that a shipyard with the history, skill and tradition of Harland and Wolff—which has frequently been in the vanguard of technological innovation—is incapable of building a warship. I know that the Minister cannot go into detail tonight, but is there any way in which he can convince me and the work force in Harland and Wolff that what he is saying is correct?

Mr. Rossi: I cannot enter into a technical discussion on matters of this sort. However, I can indicate that with regard to this technology Harland and Wolff is 11 years out of date, and 11 years are centuries in terms of the development of highly sophisticated weapons of war—as are modern warships. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman pursues his inquiries elsewhere. He will find that there is a great deal of force in my point.
I was asked about production dates in Harland and Wolff whether it is possible

for them to be improved and whether I have had discussions with the trade unionists and the management there. Again, that is not a matter for my Department or a matter for which I have responsibility, but I have had casual meetings with management and trade unionists and I have told them a story. I should like to repeat that story.
Within my constituency there is a gentleman who is a member of a Greek shipping firm. A month or two ago he told me that he was having ships built in Japan, that he was having trouble over quality control, and that he was having to send people to Japan to ensure that the ships were properly built. I asked him what was wrong with Harland and Wolff. I suggested that he should come to Northern Ireland, where he would get a good ship built. I asked him why he did not place his order there. He said that he knew all about Harland and Wolff and that the ships that it produced were virtually the best in the world but that his problem was that Harland and Wolff did not deliver on time. He said that if he ordered a ship he would be investing millions of pounds in that ship and that that money had to start working immediately. He said that if he asked for a ship to be completed on a certain date it would be because he had contracted the space on that ship under a series of contracts and that if he missed the starting date he stood to lose a great deal of money. He said that he could not take that risk and that he could not give his business to a shipyard that might put him in that position.
I have told trade unionists that story, and they say that it is the fault of the management which does not organise the work load properly. I have talked to the management, who say that if there were not so many restrictive practices the matter could be sorted out. It is for management, unions and the work force to sort out the matter so that they satisfy their customers, and so that the customers are willing to place orders.
It is like going into a restaurant. Does one go to the restaurant where the waiter immediately takes the order, ensures that there is no long wait between courses, ensures that the plates are hot and that the food is warm, and where one is seen out with a smile—or does one go to the restaurant where one is kept waiting for


hours, where no one cares a damn whether one is there and where there is a long wait between courses? Which restaurant would one dine at again? Shipbuilding is not very different. It is not for me to tell Harland and Wolff how to run its business, but the customers are telling it how to run its business, and that is the beginning and the end of the matter.
As I have said, the Government are giving financial support. We gave certain financial support last year and some the year before. The modernisation programme, which has virtually made Harland and Wolff the best shipyard in Europe, was started in 1973, and, although hon. Members are inclined to criticise Tory Ministers about their attitude towards the shipyard, I should remind them that 1973 was the year of a Tory Administration which started that work in Harland and Wolff. Millions of pounds have been invested in making that a good, modern, capital-intensive shipyard. The opportunities should be seized by those working there to show the world that they can build ships and deliver them on time.

Mr. James Molyneaux: We on the Official Unionist Bench will assist the hon. Gentleman in trying to persuade Harland and Wolff to display a little more streamlining and cohesion. Perhaps I can illustrate the problem by saying that before Easter, with the knowledge that this debate was to take place this evening, we made determined efforts to meet the representatives of the unions involved. For some unknown reason, at any rate to us, they insisted that we meet next Friday, two days after this debate's delivery date.

Mr. Rossi: All of us must try to persuade both management and the work force that their future depends upon their efforts. It is essentially that, and no more than that.
I do not know how I stand for time and whether there is an opportunity to deal with the remaining questions—[Interruption.] I did not hear that.

Mr. Fitt: I think that hon. Members said that the hon. Gentleman would be getting time if he kept on speaking.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Pontypridd asked about the British Steel

bulk carrier. I am advised that no decision has yet been made about that. Discussions are still taking place involving Harland and Wolff, the British Steel Corporation and the Government about the financing arrangements.
As to the ordering of a speculative ship, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already considered that question and has come to the view that the Government would prefer the company to build for a particular customer. The speculative building of a ship would be a heavy drain on public expenditure because of the total cost of materials, wages and overheads, which would have to be borne by the company, without any assurance that there would be a market for the ship which it built.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) asked about the EEC. I am not aware that any EEC decisions have resulted in the present problems of Harland and Wolff. There are EEC regulations concerning subsidies and credit for shipyards in order to ensure that the shipyards throughout Europe are kept in a relatively competitive position, one against the other, and to ensure that there is no unfairness through over-subsidy by one Government as against another. To that extent, the £25 million intervention fund that I mentioned is subject to EEC regulations. That is money that will be paid to shipbuilders on orders secured by them to make up the difference in price. If they find that they cannot sell as cheaply as they would like, the subsidy becomes available for the purpose of bringing down the price to that which the customer is prepared to pay. That is an alternative to the soft credit arrangements that some other EEC countries are at present operating. All in all, our arrangements are as good as those that exist anywhere in the Community.
I believe that discussions are taking place within the Community concerning the whole problem of the European shipbuilding industry. We must wait to see what further aid is likely to come from that direction. No details have yet been given.
I think that I have covered the questions of which I have made a note. Many are not directly related to the increase from the £110 upper limit to £120. Notwithstanding that some of my replies may


be regarded as not wholly satisfactory, I hope that hon. Members will not allow that to stand in the way of giving the order their approval.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 12 March, be approved.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS)

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to Move,
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 12 March, be approved.
The House knows that the amendment embodied in the draft order is the same as in the Northern Ireland order that the House has just debated. It is both minor and uncontroversial and it received approval in another place on 1 April. I hope that we need not take too much time to consider the details of the order, and I shall be brief in introducing it.
In line with the general redundancy payments scheme, the order raises the so-called previous earnings limit, against which payments under the scheme are calculated, for those whose eligible earnings are at or above that limit.
I think that the House may like me to say something about the present shipbuilding scene as we see it and how it has developed since the last debate that we had on this subject. Those of us who sit up at this time of night are aware of the problems which affect the shipbuilding industry worldwide. I think that for the details of the position as British Shipbuilders and as the Department of Industry see it hon. Members can do no better than look at the evidence submitted to the Select Committee on industry and trade on 27 February this year.
In the middle of last year, when the Government announced their policy for supporting the shipbuilding industry, new orders were at extremely low levels and there were few grounds for optimism. There has since been some improvement in ordering levels. Taking 1979 against 1978, world orders were doubled, but 1978 was the lowest year for new orders since the slump in shipbuilding began. Even the improved levels of orders are well below those needed to sustain total available capacity worldwide.
Clearly, British Shipbuilders must take advantage of the improvement in ordering levels. Other countries are just as anxious for new orders as we are, and


competition is and will continue to be fierce. Despite the doubling that I have detailed worldwide, British Shipbuilders' orders for 1979 were only about the same as for 1978. In contrast, Japanese new orders increased by over 50 per cent. and those for the rest of the EEC—excluding the United Kingdom—increased by over 70 per cent. There are some special reasons for that, but those contrasting figures do not present a particularly happy picture for us. Added to that, developing countries are also winning an increasing share of the market.
However, in 1980 British Shipbuilders has won more orders and, as a rough measure of where it stands against its target, it has acheved, or is confident of achieving, about 31 ships out of its 45 ships target. That improvement is to be welcomed, but the market is still very difficult and uncertain. Predictions for ordering levels for the rest of 1980 are not at all easy.
In the tanker market the uncertainties about future oil production and consumption, the current surplus fleet and the relative youth of the fleet will continue to depress new building. Tanker rates have already declined substantially since the end of 1979. On the other hand, freight rates in the non-tanker market have remained fairly steady since the middle of last year. Nevertheless, given the sort of growth rates that we expect for world seaborne trade in the coming years, it is unlikely that 1980 will see any great improvement in demand in this sector, either. Overall, we judge that it will be some time before we see substantial and enduring improvements.
Capacity and demand in the market are still very much out of balance. In British Shipbuilders we see the problems facing all of British industry in consequence of the high level of the petro-pound. For British Shipbuilders there is, additionally, the relationship of the pound to the yen, which has see-sawed strongly to British Shipbuilders' disadvantage over the last year or so. The prices British Shipbuilders can obtain still fall far below costs. It is, therefore, having to rely to a substantial degree upon Government assistance to obtain orders. Frequently this comes to the maximum of the intervention fund aid available. However, the

world price level is not the only determining factor. The level of costs is also important and some of the control over that, at least, is in British Shipbuilders' hands.
I stated clearly last July, and have said many times since, that the Government wish to see a viable and flourishing merchant shipbuilding industry. This can be achieved only if the industry obtains greatly improved levels of efficiency and productivity. I have no doubt that management and unions and all those who work in British Shipbuilders are persuaded of the need for this. Progress has been made, but much still needs to be done. That would be difficult enough at any time, but is more so now, when order books are not full. It is vital that progress should be made if the industry is to survive without the continuing blood drip of subsidy. British Shipbuilders deserves the full support and encouragement of the House.
British Shipbuilders' strategy, reached —as the House knows—after full consultations with the unions, is to reduce the size of our merchant shipbuilding activities to a capacity of a little over 400,000 compensated gross registered tonnes, with employment of between 18,000 and 19,000. British Shipbuilders hopes to be able to reach those targets by mid-1980 through a combination of transfers, wastage and voluntary redundancy.
It is with regard to redundancies that this order is immediately relevant. The facts are that since mid-1979 there have been over 3,500 redundancies within merchant shipbuilding and, as part of the recent broadly self-financing wage settlement, a further 3,000 voluntary redundancies are being sought from BS as a whole. Some of these have already arisen in the merchant shipbuilding sector. The inevitable contraction in the industry is well under way, but it has not vet been completed. Thanks to the good sense and understanding of the unions and the way in which they have genuinely co-operated with management in this painful but necessary process, that contraction is proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend tell us whether the 3,000 redundancies to which he has referred came from any particular area of the country or whether they were spread throughout British shipyards?

Mr. Butler: They have been spread widely over all the yards in British Shipbuilders over the period of contraction of the industry. There have certainly been redundancies on Merseyside, Tyneside, Wearside and in Scotland. I can provide my hon. Friend with the details if he so wishes, but he will find that the spread is general and includes the closing of some yards in addition to the slimming down of others.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister confirm what he has already confirmed in correspondence to me, which is that the redundancies have affected Cammell Laird more heavily than other shipyards?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will find that that is so. But on analysis one has to consider the whole period of the contraction of the industry over the past two or three years. The hon. Gentleman may well find that recently Scottish yards have been more severely affected. However, I recognise that Cammell Laird has experienced a considerable rundown in the number of workers, with obvious consequences for his constituency.
I conclude by giving the total number of people who have benefited under the shipbuilding payment schemes since their inception. My hon. Friend gave a figure for Northern Ireland and I shall include his figure in the total, which to date is 11,500. Further, more redundancies can be expected as part of the restructuring plan that British Shipbuilders determined last summer, and as part of the agreements in the present wage round. That is one reason why we believe that it is right to increase the previous earnings limit in the way that the order proposes, and I am sure that the House will wish to support it.

Dr. John Cunningham: We welcome the improvement in the provisions for redundancy payments, in so far as it is right to give a welcome to any provisions for redundancy, and we shall not oppose the order. However, I should like the Minister to comment on the question that was raised by one of my hon. Friends during the course of the discussion on Northern Ireland, namely, what is the likely impact of this upper limit in terms of the earnings levels in

the yards in England, Scotland and Wales? It may well be that earnings levels are significantly higher in those yards than they are in Harland and Wolff. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he winds up.
Despite being debated at a late hour, the order gives us an opportunity to discuss the present and future prospects of the industry. I was interested to hear the Minister say that British Shipbuilders deserves the full support of the House. We certainly accord British Shipbuilders our wholehearted support. However, I am not sure that the Minister does. Within the past 24 hours he has said that reasonably soon the Government hope to make changes in the organisation of British Shipbuilders by some form of privatisation. It is well known that unions and management are opposed to this change.
The Minister is asking us to give the industry our full support. He can hardly say that that is reflected in his own position. It would seem that quite the reverse is reflected. He seems to have grounds for wanting to make what we would regard, and what most others outside the House would regard, as unnecessary and precipitate change.
The facts seem to bear out the argument that British Shipbuilders has, in difficult circumstances, made a good and rather effective beginning. The Minister has said that it has reached about two-thirds of its orders target. It has made wide-ranging progress in a number of major areas and with a number of the major problems that faced it from vesting day. Large problems remain, but any balanced judgment would be that it has made a good and effective start.
It owes little thanks to the present Administration. We have not seen much by way of public sector orders since the Government took office. In one classic example, a public sector order went to a foreign yard—namely, the National Environmental Research Council vessel. it was a small order, but of the sort that Hall Russell and Company Limited would have welcomed. We have been given no adequate explanation of why that happened. The same yard has had disappointed over the placing of contracts for offshore patrol vessels for the Royal Navy. It has some orders for those


vessels, but not as many as it was led to believe were possible or as many as we believe would have been possible. That has been rather disappointing.
We have seen no progress within the EEC towards a scrap and build policy. Governments have said a great deal in favour of scrap and build but have produced no results. We have witnessed a steel strike which has had a significant impact upon British Shipbuilders. It has reduced perhaps the best merchant shipbuilding yard—Austin & Pickersgill Limited—on the Wear to a three-day week. Major responsibility, if not sole responsibility, for that dispute rests with the present Administration.
On the Minister's own admission we have a sterling rate—again, this is part of Government policy—which is significantly disadvantageous to British Shipbuilders in terms of achieving overseas orders. The Minister is reported in the press today as having said last evening that he wants to make changes. Attitudes in the Government seem not to be based on any consideration of what British Shipbuilders has achieved to date. These matters were discussed only recently in a letter in the same newspaper, the Financial Times, which can hardly be said to be the voice of raving Left-wing Socialism.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): What is it?

Dr. Cunningham: I should say that it is the equivalent of the "village voice" of the City of London. That is what the Financial Times seems to be. Many things were said about Government policy in a widely read and commented upon leader. It stated that it could discern no arguments for making changes in British Shipbuilders other than those based on dogma or on manifesto commitments being given overriding importance for no reason other than that they appeared in the party manifesto.
We appreciate that the Minister of State has worked hard and has visited shipyards and met trade unionists. That is appreciated by the unions especially. They have expressed their gratitude. However, he must have a major responsibility. He must know the feeling in the yards better than any member of the

Government. He must know of the attitudes and of the progress that has been made. Unfortunately, he and the Secretary of State have made comments that are having a destabilising effect not only on the management of British Shipbuilders, but on trade union involvement in the changes. They have affected people's attitudes towards those changes, although most agree that they are necessary.
If the Government pursue that course, trade unions will withdraw their co-operation. All too quickly their comments will lead to confrontation in our shipbuilding industry. That is the last thing that we want. The Government seem determined to collide head-on with trade unions to prove a point. However, it cannot be argued that that is in the best interests of British Shipbuilders, merchant shipbuilding or of our naval dockyards. Nor can it be in the wider interests of the many hundreds of thousands of companies and their employees who supply our shipyards.
The Government cannot argue that there is any good reason for getting into such a position, any need to do so. British Shipbuilders has been making progress. It is meeting its financial obligations to the Government and is well on its way with orders. There have been major improvements in its industrial relations. There has been a massive reduction in the number of disputes and the number of man hours lost in the yards. In 1972 nearly 4 million man hours were lost. That figure has consistently gone down, reaching 0·12 million in 1979. The number of disputes has also greatly dropped. No one can say that a major improvement has not been made.
A wage deal of 11 to 12 per cent., self-financing over 18 months, has recently been concluded. One would have thought that Government Members would have given their right arms to have seen that reflected in the economy. However, the attitude expressed in the Minister's speech last night puts those things at risk. To what purpose? There is no real demand for privatisation in terms of selling shares. It will probably be some time before there is a major demand for that. Will the naval yards be hived off back to the owners? They have not yet received any compensation. In many ways they have had to wait longer than when we


were in office. At that time they criticised us heavily. Perhaps their assets will be returned to them instead of compensation. That would give the Government a way out as regards public expenditure. However, it would not provide a future for our shipbuilding capability. No one can be in any doubt that our merchant shipbuilding capability would be irreparably damage by such a move.
The Minister should argue for stability in British Shipbuilders. He should not make speeches and comments that create instability. We understand that by means of the Whitehall machine he has gone as far as to book a provisional slot in the legislative programme to introduce a Bill to enact whatever the Government decide.
Such information usually leaks out. What impact does the Minister expect that news to have? No doubt he will say that he is just being prudent and is ensuring that the Department books its place in the Gracious Speech, but it seems to be a clear indication of intent. The Minister has already been told by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions of the likely result of such a move.
In north-east Scotland, the Clyde, the Tyne, the Wear, the Tees, Merseyside and elsewhere, there has been, if not a revolution, certainly a major and fundamental change in the attitude of the unions and their commitment to this important industry. British Shipbuilders has streamlined many aspects of the industry. There is more co-ordinated and efficient marketing, a free exchange of technology—the commercial barriers have been removed—and the transfer of production resources and even production workers has gone ahead effectively. There is free exchange of research and development effort and a co-ordination of design effort. They are major achievements for the industry and for all the industries that depend on shipbuilding.
We have seen the allocation of ship types to yards with particular expertise, co-ordination in national wage and salary structures—the removal of a massively complex arrangement, reducing between 160 and 170 local bargains to one overall approach. That has been of major benefit to the industry. There is an industry-wide pension scheme, co-ordinated purchasing policy and a career development plan.

All those improvements will be jeopardised by the idea that the Minister of State is floating.
The industry has also developed the establishment of best working practices, the co-ordination of training at all levels to ensure proper standards, the adoption of a single clearing bank to reduce overdraft charges and so on, a single point of contact for prospective purchasers, the Government and all the organisations and agencies involved in discussions with the industry, a co-ordinated approach to world exhibitions and trade fairs, and a harmonised accounting system.
Those are all major advantages which have been brought about by having a unified shipbuilding industry. It would be foolish in the extreme for the Government to jeopardise the progress that has been made. It would meet with fundamental, serious and major opposition, not only in the House, but in the industry.

Mr. Ernie Ross: As my hon. Friend the Member for White-haven (Dr. Cunningham) said, while we welcome the scheme, one of the problems for those of us who are members Of the trade union movement is that we do not believe in redundancy schemes as such, because we do not accept that one worker has the right to sell a job that he temporarily holds. But we recognise that the problems facing many of our industries require that if there are to be pay-offs a payment should be made to each worker concerned to ensure that at least he can sustain his family and himself while he seeks work. However, with the policies being pursued by the present Government, one would hesitate to hazard a guess at the sums required by those who may be made redundant in the next few years to ensure that they can sustain their family at a reasonable standard of living until they secure employment.
My hon. Friend also referred to the statement made by the Minister last night at the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. Here again, we would point out some of the difficult areas into which the Government's policies are leading this nationalised industry, when they seek to introduce private capital. Our arguments in the debates on the British Aerospace Bill are just as relevant in connection with the shipbuilding industry. Clearly,


shipbuilding—and particularly the naval aspects—is a strategic resource.
We hear from the Conservatives about their commitment to the defence of this country. I shudder to think of the interference in our naval contracts that there could be if foreign ownership were allowed to infiltrate into our nationalised industry. Looking at the way in which the Government are trying to de-nationalise British Aerospace, one can only assume that they will use similar plans for the shipbuilding industry, and we cannot have much confidence that those plans will contain safeguards for a strategic resource.
We also wait to hear from the Government when they will pursue a proper scrap-and-build programme. While most of the British fleet is, perhaps, much more competitive and modern than that of many of our overseas competitors, there is still, at the bottom end of the fleet tonnage, great scope for such a programme. Many of those ships would suit the capabilities of the yards that hon. Members on both sides of the House represent.
The benefit would not go only to the shipyards. The country would benefit from the modernisation of our fleet through the saving of energy. Benefits would also go to the Conservatives' friends, the owners of the shipping fleets, through operating much more efficient fleets. We hope that the orders that are given will not be used simply to seek to justify the Government's continued lack of support for the industry, but will assure the workers in the industry that the Government are concerned to ensure that we have a viable industry in the 1980s and the 1990s.
I should like to concentrate on the effects that the order may have in my own area. The Robb Caledon yard in Dundee faces a serious position, which grows more serious as the weeks go on. There is to be a meeting between British Shipbuilders and the shipbuilding negotiating committee tomorrow and on Friday. On Friday they will concentrate on that yard. I hope to be there to speak to British Shipbuilders and the members of the SNC.
I have written to Ministers asking for support for specific areas within the Dundee yard. It is now generally agreed fol-

lowing a meeting in February at the yard between British Shipbuilders' executives, the Robb Caledon management and the trade unions, that the yard must diversify, particularly into oil-related industry structures and other non-shipbuilding work, including steel fabrication for both offshore and onshore construction, and ship repair and refit work.
To do that the yard must be capable of responding to those industries. British Shipbuilders are making demands on the Dundee yard to seek work in the oil industry. A basic requirement of that industry is delivery on time. The Minister made great play of the need for prompt delivery. The yard therefore requires the necessary tools and equipment. There is no point in telling an oil company that it cannot have the required service because the facilities in the yard are so antiquated that the time schedules cannot be met or have broken down because of a lack of planned maintenance.
In my letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 26 February I said that I was concerned that there was no planned programme of maintenance in the Dundee yard. If the work force is to diversify, that is absolutely crucial. I also asked in that letter for a much wider view to be taken of Dundee, and suggested that, perhaps, a new yard could be built there. However, as we are discussing the redundancy payment scheme, it is more relevant to concentrate on more immediate problems. A new yard for Dundee is a long-term and perhaps uncertain prospect, but in the immediate future we need facilities that can respond to the new situation.
Yarrow Engineering Glasgow Limited, a private company, announced on 8 April that it would be closing down its ship repair yard in Dundee from 9 May 1980, with the loss of 46 jobs. Yarrow's have just completed at Dundee one of the biggest repairs to a vessel in Britain since the Second World War, having almost rebuilt a vessel that was previously named "Smitt Lloyd" and renamed "Muhammed Ali". It was an astounding technical achievement. Perhaps that is why it was given that name.
That company has expert knowledge of the ship repairing sector. In announcing the closure, the chairman made it clear that it was impossible to operate a ship repairing industry in Dundee with


the existing facilities. He instanced the lack of suitable cranage facilities and the very limited dry dock facilities. The company made it clear that considerable upgrading and modernisation of harbour facilities are necessary if Dundee is to compete effectively with other ship repairing areas. Those are the very same comments that I was making.
On 17 March the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry and education indicated that, if there was to be diversification, the Government might give Dundee sympathetic consideration. The chairman of Yarrow Engineering Glasgow Limited has expert knowledge of ship repairing, and the Government must take his comments seriously if they are concerned to support the shipbuilding industry, particularly in Dundee. The time is ripe for the Government to make a special case of Dundee.
Within the Dundee yard we have a highly skilled work force, capable of building ships at the very edge of technology. It has proved that in the past with the cable-laying ship built for the Post Office. The yard provides apprenticeships and training for about 100 young people in Dundee, who will contribute not only to the industry, but assist manufacturing in Dundee to remain competitive.
It is for those reasons that I believe that the time is right for the Government to come into Dundee and to give some special aid to the Dundee port authority to build a synchro-lift facility within the Dundee harbour. It is vitally important that that synchro-lift should be built and the money provided to allow the port authority to build it.
One of the problems of representing an area which has special development area status is that when the economy in that area—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I have allowed a great deal of latitude to the Front Benches and I have tried to exercise the same restraint in relation to the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that we are discussing whether £120 is to be the limit.

Mr. Ross: I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the £120 is money that the workers in Dundee would rather the Government kept. While agreeing that

the figure should be increased, I think that it is quite fair, within the debate, to suggest to the Government ways in which they could avoid having to pay this money, whether they increase it or not. A number of people in Dundee are concerned to suggest to the Government other ways in which—even if the Government increase the money—such sums could be spent. It could be used, possibly, for other more urgent requirements.
The special development area status is an acceptance by the Government that the area concerned has special problems. One of the reasons why the Government are now seeking to increase the redundancy limit in regard to the shipbuilding is obviously to take account of that aspect. What we find in the special development areas is that when we run into problems we attract people whose backgrounds are slightly spurious, to say the least. Today we have had someone who suggested that he would like some Government money to build a synchro-lift in Dundee. I would not agree that he is a person who should be given any help in this regard, because in the same breath in which he asked for Government assistance he admitted that he has no experience in the shipbuilding or ship repairing industry. Yet he suggests that he knows the answers in regard to the ship repairing concerns in Dundee.
The people in Dundee are not asking that they be allowed to take advantage of this increase in the redundancy payments scheme. The workers and the management in Dundee are asking the Government to come in and give some assistance, so that that money can be used to help British Shipbuilders ensure that there will be a British shipbuilding unit within the Dundee area in the 1980s.

Mr. Frank Field: I hope that my brevity will be matched, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by your generosity should I stray just slightly beyond the order that we are discussing this evening. It is a year since we had a similar debate, and I think it worth while to spend a couple of minutes reflecting on what has happened within that period.
The last 12 months have witnessed a continuing decline in shipbuilding. Much of the 1970s has seen a fall in the numbers working in the industry. While the rest of the world was expanding in


terms of shipbuilding capacity in the early part of the 1970s, the British shipbuilding industry did not respond in a similar way. The latter part of the 1970s has been marked by a continual decline in the numbers employed in British shipbuilding and the support industries. That decline has continued over the past year.
A marked decline in the numbers working in the industry has also been matched by a drop in the restrictive practices. Hon. Members would be hard put to think of another industry which has suffered the contraction that the shipbuilding industry has suffered, and which has matched that contraction with a disbandment of restrictive practices, at a time when unemployment generally in the economy has been rising. That is a sign that the men wish the industry to survive.
If that is not enough to show their good faith and their wish to make the industry a success, one has only to examine the recent pay agreement to which my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) referred. We would have to search hard to find other industries which have reached agreement on productivity increases leading to a real increase in standards of living for the work force. The most recent issue of Incomes Data Services' report stated:
Credit for the comparatively smooth conclusion to this year's negotiations must certainly go to the industry's good industrial relations, which show a marked improvement since nationalisation.
That has been achieved peacefully. We must ask "Why?" The answer is simple. There is agreement in the industry for implementing the corporate plan. That plan rests on two assumptions. We are debating one of the assumptions.
One assumption is that there should be a further contraction in the size of the industry in terms of employees. The second assumption is that the contraction should be mitigated to some extent by a shift from work on merchant shipbuilding to completing orders from the Royal Navy. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven commented on the lack of orders which have materialised from the public sector.
I am anxious about the orders which Cammell Laird hopes to achieve. We are

particularly interested in the two support tankers. A recent letter from the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence caused particular anxiety. It stated:
The shipbuilders' tenders have now been evaluated and, in the light of that evaluation, it has been decided to review the Royal Navy's support tanker requirement in order to determine whether it can be met more cost-effectively. The review is in hand, but since it has not yet been completed, it has been decided to allow the current tenders to lapse.
There is a possibility of further redundancies, not just at Cammell Laird but at many other shipyards. That makes the order that we are debating even more important.
A key question relates to the corporate plan, agreed and approved by the Government a year ago. The Government gave it their blessing. The plan comprised two parts. It attempted to win a sizeable number of merchant shipbuilding orders and to bring orders from the public sector. What has happened to those orders? Did the Government agree to the plan when they came into office? Did they agree to both parts when underwriting the financial future for the industry over two years? If so, what has changed their minds about the Navy orders?
A year ago the Minister rightly made great play about the fact that he was in favour of the scrap-and-build programme. He said that he was one of the EEC Minister most in favour of it. What news has he to report on that front? It is not only important in gaining merchant shipbuilding orders. If there is to be a contraction of the orders that we hope to receive from the Navy, scrap-and-build takes on an even greater importance.
Will the Minister be a little more forth-coming than the newspapers have been about his speech yesterday? What are the plans for what will be the phrase for the 1980s, namely "privatisation of the yards"? Will it be only the Navy yards, or do the Government have plans for the mixed yards? My correspondence with the Minister concerned the loss of shipbuilding jobs in Cammell Laird both well before and after nationalisation. In the period up to nationalisation we suffered more than our fair share of job losses compared to the average job losses over the country. Since nationalisation, Cammell Laird has once again borne more


than its fair share of job losses over the past couple of years.
There is an unemployment rate of 11 per cent. in Birkenhead as a whole, with about 280 vacancies and 7,500 unemployed. In the river streets around Cammell Laird unemployment is reaching 30 per cent. When we debated the matter a year ago the Minister said that Cammell Laird had a bright future. What hope does he hold out tonight? What has happened to the corporate plan, especially the Navy orders which were a crucial part of fulfilling the target of a peaceful rundown of the shipbuilding industry to a lower level of production? What does he have to report on scrapand-build? What are the plans to introduce private shareholding into the yards, and how extensive will that be?
The answers to those questions will, in part, determine how important is the order that we are debating tonight, and how many of our constituents will be dependent upon it in the coming year.

Mr. Adam Butler: I shall attempt to answer points that have been raised during the debate, but briefly as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have guided us on this matter.
It would be appropriate to deal with the one specific point in regard to the order itself, the raising of the limit, to which the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) referred. He asked a specific question about its impact. My information is that raising the limit could affect about 1 or 2 per cent. of the beneficiaries. The average wage in British Shipbuilders for manual workers is about £90 to £100. Therefore, the figure of £120 is, generally speaking, above that level.
Having asked that introductory question, the hon. Gentleman launched into, not a powerful attack on the Government, but an accusation that we were lacking in our support for British Shipbuilders. I reject that as a totally unfair and unjustified charge. He knows of the massive package of aid which I announced to the House in July of last yeas—aid that was put behind British Shipbuilders in a considerable number of ways. That aid has been made available, and we have given full support to British Shipbuilders over a difficult time.
There are three areas with which I should deal in some detail. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) referred to the problems of Robb Caledon. I am well aware of them. I am aware that British Shipbuilders will be meeting the shipbuilding negotiating committee in the course of the next day or two. I am informed that Robb Caledon is one of the yards that will be discussed.
There have been special understandings in regard to that yard between the management and the unions, and it has been given an opportunity to find orders. My understanding is that those orders have not been forthcoming. Therefore, consideration must be given to what the next step should be. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government could do anything to help. Decisions in regard to the yard must be a matter for British Shipbuilders. As for aid being available for other matters, the hon. Gentleman referred to the special development area status of his constituency. That in itself is an attraction for any inward investment.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Although we are vitally concerned about the future of Robb Caledon within British Shipbuilders, there are other ship repairing and oil-related facilities in Dundee, namely, Kestrel Engineering, Peterhead Engineering, and, until 9 May, Yarrow Shiprepairing, which could also benefit from Government assistance. Therefore the question goes wider just than assistance for Robb Caledon. We require assistance if Dundee is to participate in the ship repairing industry generally.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not pursue his point about the new yards that he mentioned. I know that there are problems, but we are talking about a redundancy payments order which affects the yards of British Shipbuilders, and in that respect Robb Caledon is relevant.
On scrap-and-build, I confirm that I have been as strong as anybody in my support within the Council of Ministers for such a scheme. However, the House knows that within the Community there must be agreement between Ministers in order to proceed. Such agreement has not been established. At present I can report only that the proposals are back with the Commission and are bogged down by the


lack of agreement. Certainly, from time to time, I see whether anything can be done by our people to make progress, but I have no great confidence at this moment in a scheme coming forward. I repeat, the benefits from such a scheme would be small. However, if such a scheme were to produce a few orders that would be welcome. I have not given up hope, but I have to be frank about the situation.
I was asked about the position on public sector orders. It is fair comment that there have not, perhaps, been the public sector orders that a number of hon. Members would have expected. Whereas one can bring orders forward, one cannot expect the Ministry of Defence to place speculative orders for unwanted ships. I hope that more orders will be forthcoming. Turning to the vessels which were referred to by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—the two support tankers—I gather that this review is taking place. The fact that it is taking place indicates that orders may be forthcoming, but that is something for which he and I must wait.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven referred to the "Frederick Russell". That was a straightforward case of an order being put out to tender. Regrettably, other non-British yards were able to meet the requirements of a customer at a significantly cheaper price.

Mr. Field: I should like to press the Minister a little further on that point. It has been represented to the House that it is unreasonable to expect the Government to rustle up a few public sector orders, and perhaps that is so. However, when the Minister announced a major package for the shipbuilding industry, and the level of support that the Government were to provide, we were told that the plan was in two parts—what was expected from the merchant shipping side, and what was expected from British Shipbuilders on navy orders. Therefore, I assumed that, before the level of financial support was commended by the Government, they had looked carefully at the two parts of the plan and had paid particular attention to the public sector orders—the navy orders. I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that at that stage the Government underwrote that side of the programme, and said that they thought it

was feasible for that number of ships to be included in the plan.
We now find that those ships are not forthcoming from the public sector. Hence the real urgency of this order, because we now expect redundancies to be at a greater level than was originally envisaged. Is it not the case that the Government have shifted their position on public sector orders?

Mr. Butler: There is no question of the Government shifting their position. Public sector orders can emanate from two sources. There have been orders from the Ministry of Defence, and I am confident that orders will continue. On the other side of the public sector, the number of ships that are possible in total tonnage is small. We have tried to find out whether those orders could be accelerated. I do not think that that position should be exaggerated.
The production of naval ships is part of the overall plan, although I remind the hon. Member for Birkenhead that the option 2 plan—as it came to be known—of British Shipbuilders referred specifically to merchant shipbuilding. Again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that in July we said that we supported the plan, but we made it clear that we felt that the targets would be difficult to achieve. Tonight I have reminded the House of the position since last summer, and I have given an indication of the order book with regard to merchant shipping. British Shipbuilders is making a brave and strenuous effort to reach its targets. We must hope that orders are forthcoming on the merchant shipping side.
I did not raise the subject, but I am reminded that I made a speech last night—

Dr. John Cunningham: Before the Minister moves to another point, may I say that it is not good enough for him to gloss over the question of public sector orders? There is no doubt that a year ago, when the Minister made his major announcement about British Shipbuilders, there seemed to most people—certainly those in the industry—to be a commitment from the Government on public sector orders. The record since then has been less than the apparent commitment. Military orders have not been as forth-coming as people were led to believe,


and one—albeit small—non-military British public sector ship is now being built in a Belgian yard. The Minister of State says that that is because the Belgian yard was able to build it more cheaply. That may be so, but only because of a significant subsidy from the Belgian Government. It is not good enough, and we shall not allow the Minister to skate over this record as smoothly as he has tried to do. The record of the Government in this respect is bad. It could be better. It is in the interests of everyone—not least the Government—that it should be better. Would it not be a tragedy if the predicted upturn in shipbuilding orders came too late because of the Government's failure to sustain existing capacity in British yards?

Mr. Butler: I must correct the hon. Gentleman in one respect. It is totally untrue to say that the Belgian yard which gained the order for the "Frederick Russell" was subsidised. Belgian shipyards are not subsidised.
I am not attempting to gloss over this at all. I said to the House very frankly in answer to questions, when the policy was announced and subsequently in other debates, that we would bring forward public sector orders where we could. But there must be a degree of realism in all these things, and it is realism which the Government have practised. We are not prepared to fabricate orders especially for this or that purpose. As I have said, there have been naval orders and there will continue to be naval orders. I make my representations to my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence in regard to such orders. But it is not my intention, and certainly they would not respond, to have orders fabricated or brought forward unrealistically. That the hon. Gentleman must accept.
I was about to refer to the speech which I made last night. It was picked up in one newspaper, and I am glad, because it allows me to put it in context. I was making reference to the constraints which managements in the public sector experience. Indeed, there were exchanges in the House today on that subject. I was pointing out that that was one of the difficulties which accompanied the public sector and made the job of running public sector businesses more difficult. Consequently, the success of the business itself is less good. I pointed

out that managements' energies, at least in part, had to be used to deal with the political dimension. I also said that, with regard to the public sector, there was no guarantee of job security. I did not elaborate on the point, but I need say no more, because the evidence is that in the public sector today there is no such thing as job security. Regretfully, it is an area where redundancies are greater than anywhere else.
The Government are considering the introduction of private sector capital into the industry. I have made no secret of it in my meetings and discussions with the unions, whether at national level or in the yards. But we shall introduce private sector capital into British Shipbuilders at the appropriate time only if it is in the best interests of the industry. We believe that the private sector is, generally, better for industry than the public sector and, therefore, for those who work in that industry. It would be for that purpose, and not for any reasons of political dogma, that we would go ahead with plans for British Shipbuilders. However, no decisions have been made, and we shall make announcements at the appropriate time.
It is because we have a high regard for British shipbuilding that we have given the industry our support since we came into power. The order we are debating, while important to those few people who will be covered by it, is a small part, and evidence, of that support. Once again, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 12 March, be approved.

NORTHALLERTON (LEVEL CROSSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Sir Timothy Kitson: I apologise to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House and to my hon. Friend who has to answer this debate for raising yet another problem at


this very late hour. But the problem of the Springwell Lane level crossing at Northallerton is difficult and tiresome for many of the inhabitants who regularly have to cross this railway line.
The problem arises because in recent months British Railways have changed their policy with regard to the use of this railway line. Until May of last year, the line running from Northallerton to Teesside was used only at night, but, with the introduction of the HS-125 intercity services last May, additional traffic was put on the line. Indeed, it is now used regularly day and night, carrying more than 40 trains a day.
The crossing is close to the centre of Northallerton—probably less than half a mile out of the centre of the town—and it serves 26 houses, some farm land and 74 people who live just across the railway line from the centre of the town. All the residents leaving their homes for work, children going to school and tradesmen serving those houses have to cross the railway line.
The Springwell Lane crossing is unsatisfactory in this modern age. Last Saturday I went there again to refresh my memory of the situation. As usual, I discovered that the gates had again been left open. That is how the gates are left for most of the time nowadays, although they are supposed to be closed. Because the gates swing outwards, anybody going into Springwell Lane drives up to the gates and, if they are closed—which, as I said, is a rare occasion—has to cross the line five times before he gets his car over the level crossing and to his house. He opens the gate, walks across and opens the other gate, which opens outwards on the far side, walks back and gets into his car, drives across the line, gets out of his car and walks back and closes the far gate, closes the near gate behind him, gets into his car and drives to his house. As the line is 22 yards wide, it is not a happy prospect on a cold, wintry or snowy night. It is hardly surprising that the 74 inhabitants of Springwell Lane do not bother to shut the gates.
British Railways employees, who have for some months been working on the far side of the railway line from the centre of the town, cross the line regularly. I am assured by people who live in Springwell Lane that those employees rarely

close the gates.
I should add that the gates are 9 ft. 9 in. wide. That does not allow for the modern farm machinery that has to cross the line in this day and age. It is impossible to get a combine harvester across the line without taking it to pieces.
Some time ago British Railways put in an audible warning alarm, which most people in the area state is totally inadequate and unsatisfactory. I am assured that it makes the most appalling row, which affects the houses adjacent to the crossing. At a recent public meeting one householder, who lives close to the crossing, said that he is woken up as each train passes because of the row made by the machine. He always gets up and has a cup of tea. That happens 10 times every night. He assures me that if it goes on for much longer he will need to consult his doctor.
This may seem a small point, but it is true to say that this is an unsatisfactory position. The Act covering the status and the provisions of the crossing is outdated and does not take into account the modern-day user—soundproof cars, invalid carriages, farm machinery. All of these use the crossing regularly. The Act which operates here is the Leeds and Hartlepool Act 1846, which incorporates the provisions of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. The road over the crossing was referenced as an occupation road and bridle road. Under section 61 of the Act, British Railways' obligation was only to provide and maintain
convenient Ascents and Descents and other convenient Approaches
together with
good and sufficient Gates…on each side".
I stress again that 74 people living in 26 houses are affected. Whenever they go out they have to use the crossing and handle the heavy duty gates, which have to be manually opened and closed. Not only are there 74 residents but there are the milkman, the postman, the paper boys food delivery people and farm machinery and British Railways employees, all of whom are using the crossing regularly. A census was carried out in 1971 which showed that 231 vehicles used the crossing every day. I believe that the House would agree that it is likely that that figure has risen considerably in the last nine years.
We also have the problem of an increased number of trains arising from the introduction of the HS-125 locomotive on the main line. This has meant the diversion of, on average, 40 trains a day, on to this line. The rules applying to the opening and closing of the gates are continually ignored. This creates a danger for the innocent user who is not experienced in the workings of the line.
Recently I attended a public meeting, which included representatives of the residents, British Railways, the county council and the district council. It was clear from that discussion that British Railways recognised the need to improve the crossing. They argue, however, that at the moment they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities. Nevertheless the present situation, most people would agree, is unacceptable. As is so often the case, the question here is: who is to pay for the new crossing? British Railways suggest that it would cost something in the region of £30,000 for flashing lights and a modern barrier, and they would probably install it in the middle of 1981. They also said at this meeting that they would accept at least 50 per cent. of the cost of the reorganisation. Then they look to the district and county council to make a contribution. As in so many of these cases, it seems that we are really arguing about from which pocket we take the money. British Railways suggest that a new, modern, crossing with automatic barriers should be installed, and everyone accepts that this is necessary.
I think that my hon. Friend will be aware of the case of Herrington v. British Rail in 1972. British Railways were found to have other responsibilities for the safety of the public which are not normally found in their terms of reference. They did not accept this parallel at the time. A complaint was laid before the Health and Safety Executive some years ago drawing a comparison between the responsibility of industry and a public body.
It can be argued that the milkman and the postman who use this railway crossing are not covered because the gates are never shut. As the employees of British Rail use this crossing they must know about the risk to the public yet they appear not to take any action. In the past 10 years there have been possibly two prosecutions

and everybody knows that the normal practice is to leave the gates open. It would be argued that the postman and the milkman have a right to look to British Railways and to ask whether their safety is covered.
I am sure that when my hon. Friend replies he will be sympathetic. We all know that there is difficulty in finding money. However, the present position must not be allowed to continue indefinitely. I repeat, British Railways accept that there is need for improvement. They recognise that adequate safety arrangements are not provided because for many years the need to close the gates during the day has not arisen. By habit they are left open day in and day out, week in and week out, and now year in and year out. With the substantial increase in traffic, we know that the safety requirements are not covered.
The Secretary of State has powers under section 124 of the Transport Act 1968 to require the British Railways Board to provide additional protection where a private crossing carries a significant public user. I dare say that he may feel that he should implement that part of the Act.
I have been helped by Councillor Bacon, who was recently elected to Northallerton council. He has done much research into this case and taken a great deal of trouble with it. I am grateful to him for the work that he has done. He, like so many others, believes that unless we do something with the railway crossing, we shall have a serious accident.
All the residents who live in Springwell Lane believe that some action should be taken, and the Minister could help us in one way. As British Railways have accepted the fact that improvement is required, have offered to pay a substantial part of the cost and have turned to the local authorities to provide some of the money, perhaps my hon. Friend's Department could find a way of co-ordinating discussions between British Rail and the local authorities which would result in a solution. I cannot believe that we should allow the present situation to continue.
I very much hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will assure us that the necessity for improvement is accepted and that a way of finding the necessary money will be discussed with all concerned.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Sir T. Kitson) on obtaining an Adjournment debate on the Springwell Lane level crossing. I listened with interest to what he said. I realise that the present situation at this level crossing is not in any way satisfactory. I think that everyone involved recognises that. Almost all the parties involved would like to see the arrangements at this level crossing improved.
As my hon. Friend rightly anticipated, we are mainly concerned about who pays for the necessary improvements and how we can best achieve some agreement to ensure that they are made. Indeed, I think that everyone concerned accepts that there should be some form of automatic level crossing at this point. The sort of crossing that could be provided would be the new type of automatic open crossing, which is remotely monitored from a signal box. That would involve "wig-wag" traffic signals at all four corners of the crossing. The crossing would be widened to enable vehicles to pass each other and audible warning devices could be turned down at night. The cost of the installation cannot at present be estimated exactly, but I am told that it would not be less than £50,000. We are concerned about the way in which the various authorities might contribute to produce the necessary money.
My hon. Friend has described the present road and rail layout, which is unusual. Part of the unusual background has given rise to the present situation. Springwell Lane crosses the Northallerton-Stockton goods line in Northallerton. The two lines divide and Springwell level passes below that part known as the high level by bridge crosses the low level by level crossing, passes beneath the East Coast main line and terminates at a farm.
The lines are operated under ancient legislation. I believe that it was the Leeds and Thirsk Railway Act 1846 which governed the present situation. Certainly it incorporates the relevant parts of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. My hon. Friend has correctly described the legal obligations on the board, with which it complies. That legislation governs all the arrangements concerning the

crossing, including the obligation upon those who use it to reshut and fasten the gates after use. However, as my hon. Friend says, with his knowledge of the crossing, in practice that system is by no means being followed as regularly as perhaps it ought.
Since the middle of the nineteenth century there has been further development in the locality in Springwell Lane as well as recent changes in railway traffic. Springwell serves some houses west of the East Coast main line. Some of them are terraced houses south of the road between the two lines that were built at the turn of the century. There are some bungalows north of the line that were built before and after the last war. There are 25 houses in all.
The level crossing is unmanned and it has always been unmanned. It has wide wooden gates about 10ft wide which open away from the railway and a sleeper surface adequate for carrying cars. It has wicket gates for the use of pedestrians. I have been given details of the visibility and speeds on the line. At line speed for the freight trains that use it—about 50 m.p.h.—down trains can be seen for about 300 yards, which is about 12 seconds' warning, and up trains for about 150 yards, which is about six seconds' warning. As that is not adequate, the railway has been provided with a warning bell, which sounds for about one minute. The bell has recently been altered to what is known as a yodel alarm, which is more reliable in icy conditions.
I have listened to what my hon. Friend said about the inadequacy of the alarm, although he has also said, somewhat inconsistently, that those who live near to the line have apparently been complaining about the noise that it makes at night. I can well understand that the noise is unpleasant, especially if it is experienced frequently as one is trying to sleep.
Unfortunately, this situation has been allowed to grow up over the years. I am sure that that is through no one's specific fault. All the surrounding houses must have received planning authority from the local land authority when they were built. The railway board tells me and my Department that it was never given any opportunity to comment on the adequacy or otherwise


of the crossing. The use of the line and the housing development near it has built up over the years without anybody consulting anyone else, as far as one understands, about the adequacy of the crossing. It continues to be operated on the old basis.
Fortunately, there has so far been only one accident, although I do not place great reliance on that, since we should not wait for accidents to occur. I am told that during a night in January 1974 a local car driver was struck by a goods train on the crossing. Fortunately, little damage was sustained and there were no casualties. The gates had been left open on that occasion. Apparently the car driver did not open the car window to listen to the bell.
It was probably lucky that the consequence was not more serious. However, the fact remains that that is the only accident that has taken place.
The traffic on the line has recently changed. For many years goods trains were carried on the high-level lines by day—which involves going over the lane on a bridge—and the low-level lines by the level crossing were used only at night. High-speed trains were brought on to the main lines in May 1979. Since then, low-level lines have been in use for 24 hours to save the use of a cross-over on the main lines. I well understand my hon. Friend's representation that, since the line has seen a greatly increased use on the lower level, concern has increased.
At the time, the board reminded all those concerned in writing about the change in the pattern of rail traffic and they were reminded of their responsibilities towards reclosing the gates. There have been two prosecutions for failing to close the gates. In October 1979 two individuals were fined £25 each. I am sorry to say that my information corresponds with my hon. Friend's local knowledge, and in practice the gates are not always closed after use. Some attempt has been made to measure the present use of the crossing. I am told that householders keep about 50 cars. A census carried out in May 1979 showed that 230 vehicles used the crossing per day.
There is now pressure to use the legal powers available to try to get those involved to reach an agreement to modernise the crossing. I followed the argu-

ments of Councillor Bacon, to whom my hon. Friend referred. He has written to the railways inspectorate suggesting that the board was not fulfilling its responsibility under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. However, the Act cannot apply since the method of working the crossing is laid down in a specific nineteenth century statute. The board has no power of its own to change that statutory obligation.
My hon. Friend raised the question of section 124 of the Transport Act 1968. That has been looked at. It gives the Minister power to make an order to improve the protection of the crossing. That power can be used only if the crossing has developed significant public use, namely, when a former private road has become a public highway. An important problem is that the road clearly remains a private road. The local authority has looked at the problem but has declined to adopt the road as a public road. The crossing is, as it always has been, a private level crossing. The Minister's powers under section 124 of the Transport Act 1968 do not apply at the moment.
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for being so technical, but this is of concern to his constituents. The legal position is that if the road were to be adopted as a public road, the powers under section 124 of the Transport Act 1968 could be used to authorise modern forms of protection at the crossing. It is also possible that a grant, under EEC regulation 1192, might be available.
The local council has declined to adopt the road and so it is not a public road. It therefore remains a private level crossing. I am glad to say that some discussions have taken place. My hon. Friend said that he attended the meeting on 21 March at the district council offices. I understand that the North Yorkshire county council, the Northallerton town council, Councillor Bacon and a number of householders were present. I am sorry that no agreement was reached at that meeting about how the cost of providing the improvements—which I think all would agree are needed—could be met. Once again, it was made clear that the county council—the highway authority—was not prepared at that stage to adopt Springwell Lane as a public road. There was an exchange between the board and


the county council that did not reach a successful conclusion. Along with my hon. Friend, I hope that something can be done to enable the various local authorities and the board to reach some understanding and that the improvements will be financed.
On the general policy for improving level crossings, last autumn my right hon. Friend the Minister agreed with the recommendations of the level crossing working party and on the basis of its work the British Railways Board proposed automatic open crossings at the site, and design work for the necessary equipment is in hand. But the board is not prepared to bear the full cost on this private crossing, and that is not surprising when one looks at the considerable amount of level crossing improvement work that has to be done.
Nevertheless, the board has agreed to contribute towards the cost of the necessary improvements. It is open to the highway authority and the local authority to contribute to the cost. Section 123 of the Transport Act 1968 specifically empowers them to make a contribution. It is my hope and, I understand, the hope of the board that the understandable concern for safety at the crossing will be followed by some understanding that there should be local contributions to the cost of improving it. The board has limited funds available for level crossing improvement and modernisation and it must apply its priorities. The crossing needs improvement, but it cannot be regarded as having the highest priority in the list and it is not right to expect the board to pay the entire cost.
I have to repeat that the crossing is a private one, the use is of a private nature and, therefore, my right hon. Friend has no legal powers to require the board or anyone else to do anything. If the road were to be adopted by the county council as a public highway the situation would undoubtedly be changed, both in law and in fact. Whether that is necessary is something that the local authorities must decide.
I hope that agreement will be reached among those involved on how they share the cost. The Department has no specific legal powers to require anybody to do anything, but I understand my hon. Friend's concern and, like him, I hope that something can be done to meet the requirements of his constituents. If my Department, I or my hon. Friend can be of any assistance in facilitating contacts between the board and the various local authorities involved, who, I am sure, are anxious to help, we shall do anything that we can.
I conclude on that more encouraging note for my hon. Friend's constituents. I think that everybody wants to see something done to improve the crossing. We are somewhat bogged down in discussions about who produces what contribution to the cost and, although the Department and Ministers have no legal powers, we shall give whatever help we can in bringing the parties together to reach understanding and agreement on the division of the cost.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Two o'clock.